i 


J 


^be  Tflniversiti?  of  Cbtcaao 

FOUNDED  BY  JOHN  O  ROCKCPCLLeN 


THE  HEXAEMERAL  LITERATURE 


A  STUDY  OF  THE  GREEK  AND  LATIN  COMMEN- 
TARIES ON  GENESIS 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED  TO   THE   FACULTY  OF  THE    GRADUATE   SCHOOL  OF  ARTS 

AND  LITERATURE  IN  CANDIDACY  FOR  THE  DEGREE 

OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 

(department  of  greek) 


BY 

FR.\NK  EGLESTOX  ROBBES'S 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 
CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OP  CHICAGO  PRESS 
CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 


Hgents 
THE  BAKER  &  TAYLOR  COMPANY 

NEW    TOBK 

THE  CAMBRIDGE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

LONDON   AND    EDINBURGH 


Zbc  "Clniversiti?  ot  Cbicago 

FOUNDED  BY  JOHN  D.  ROCKCFCLLCR 


THE  HEXAEMERAL  LITERATURE 


A  STUDY  OF  THE  GREEK  AND  LATIN  COMMEN- 
TARIES ON  GENESIS 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED   TO   THE   FACULTY   OF   THE    GRADUATE   SCHOOL   OF   ARTS 

AND   LITERATURE   IN  CANDIDACY   FOR   THE   DEGREE 

OF  DOCTOR   OF   PHILOSOPHY 

(department  of  greek) 


BY 
FRANK  EGLESTON  ROB  BINS 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 
CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 


Copyright  igi2  By 
The  University  of  Chicago 


AH  Rights  Reserved 


Published  May  igi2 


Composed  and  Printed  By 

The  University  of  Chicago  Press 

Chicago,  Illinois,  U.S.A. 


PREFACE 

An  account  of  the  commentaries  on  the  creation  story  of  Genesis 
might  easily  be  expanded  to  many  times  the  size  of  that  here 
presented.  The  present  study  attempts  rather  to  formulate 
concisely  the  development  of  Genesis  interpretation,  from  its 
antecedents  in  Greek  philosophy  through  the  church  writings,  to 
the  time  of  Milton.  The  question  of  literary  form  and  the  con- 
sideration of  any  but  Latin,  Greek,  and  English  works  bearing 
directly  upon  Genesis  have  been  neglected  in  order  to  secure  this 
end.  It  is  the  author's  hope  that  the  adoption  of  this  plan  in 
treating  a  class  of  literature  which  extends  over  such  a  long  period 
of  time  and  which  as  a  whole  has  never  previously  been  the  subject 
of  investigation  will  excuse  the  necessary  shortcomings  which  it 
involves  and  increase  the  general  usefulness  of  the  essay. 

The  index  contains  an  alphabetical  list  of  authors  of  Hexaemera 
and  others  to  whom  reference  is  made,  and  under  their  names  have 
been  added  bibliographical  data  and  short  accounts  of  those  not 
accorded  special  mention  in  the  study  proper. 

I  wish  here  to  express  the  warm  thanks  I  owe  to  Professor  Paul 
Shorey  of  the  University  of  Chicago  for  suggesting  to  me  this 
investigation  and  for  his  invaluable  help  at  all  times  during  its 
progress;  to  Professor  Elmer  Truesdell  Merrill  of  the  University 
of  Chicago  and  to  Professor  William  Arthur  Heidel  of  Wesleyan 
University  for  the  inspiration  and  practical  help  that  have  come 
to  me  from  association  with  them,  and  to  the  editors  of  the 
American  Journal  of  Theology  for  permitting  me  to  reprint  here 
from  their  journal  of  April,  191 2,  the  first  chapter  of  this  study. 

Frank  Egleston  Robbins 
The  University  of  Chicago 
April,  1912 


251381 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

CHVPTER  PACB 

I.    The  Influence  of  Greek  Philosophy  on  the  Early 

Commentaries  on  Genesis i 

II.    Philo  Judaeus  and  Jewish  Hexaemeral  Writings  24 

III.  Early  Christian  Hexaemera  before  Basil    ...  36 

IV.  Basil 42 

\^    The  Followers  of  Basil 53 

VT.    Augustine 64 

VII.    Erigena  to  the  Ren.\iss.\nce 73 

Index  of  Names 93 


CHAPTER  I 

THE    INFLUENCE    OF   GREEK    PHILOSOPHY    ON    THE   EARLY 
COMMENTARIES  ON   GENESIS- 

"  Hexaemeron "  is  the  title  of  certain  treatises  and  series  of 
sermons  written  by  the  Fathers  of  the  Christian  church  comment- 
ing on  the  story  of  the  creation  of  the  world  as  told  in  Genesis, 
sometimes  a  simple  exegesis  and  sometimes  an  allegorical  version 
of  the  scriptural  story.'  The  use  of  the  name  may  be  extended 
to  cover  the  whole  body  of  literature  dealing  with  the  subject, 
including  formal  or  incidental  accounts  of  the  creation  of  the 
world,  based  upon  Genesis,  and  poetical  versions  of  the  narrative. 
The  works  of  this  class  extend  in  time  from  the  Dc  opificio  mundi 
of  Philo  Judaeus  {cir.  40  a.d.)  to  Milton's  Paradise  Lost. 

As  is  the  case  with  other  classes  of  hterary  composition,  so  the 

'  Most  of  the  authors  cited  are  commentators  on  Genesis,  and  when  a  simple 
page  reference  is  given,  it  is  to  be  understood  that  it  is  to  the  commentary  on  Genesis 
of  the  author  in  question;  for  convenience,  the  Migne  Greek  and  Latin  Pairologiae 
have  in  most  cases  been  cited. 

F"or  complete  bibliography  see  the  index.  The  following  abbreviations  for 
books  and  collections  have  been  used  in  the  index  : 

BC :   Corpus  Scriplorum  Uistoriac  Byzantlnae  (Bonn  Corpus),  Bonn,  1828-78. 
CV :   Corpus     [Vindobonense]    Scriptorum    Ecclcsiasticoriim    Latinoruni    Academiae 

lillerarum  Caesareae  Vindobonensis,  1866  fif. 
Christ  :   W.  von  Christ,  Geschichte  der  Griechischcn  Liltcratur,  Miinchen,  iSgoff. 
Krumbacher  :    K.  Krumbacher,  Geschichte  der  byzantinischcn  Liltcratur,  2d.  cd.,  Miin- 

chcn,  1807. 
MPG,  MPL:   Migne,  Pairologiae  cursus  completus.    Series  Gracca,  Paris,   1857  ff., 

Series  Latina,  Paris,  1844  fif. 
Otto  :   J.  C.  T.  Otto,  Corpus  Apologetarum  Christianorum  Saeculi  Sccundi,  Jena, 

1851-81. 

'  Strictly  the  name  should  be  17  'EJaiJ^ifpos  [sc.  Koa-fwiroiia,  Srifuovpyla],  but  the 
neuter  form  came  into  use  in  connection  with  Basil's  work.  The  first  occurrence  of 
the  word  is  probably  in  Philo,  Leg.  All.  93,  8;  it  is  found  also  in  Theophilus,  Ad.  AiUol. 
II,  12,  and  later  passim. 

>  E.g.,  the  late  Greek  and  Byzantine  chronologies  frequently  began  with  a  chapter 
on  creation,  as  did  Sir  Walter  Raleigh 's  History  of  the  World. 


2  ■  'Tke-HE'XTAEMERAL   LITERATURE 

Hexaemera  tended  to  conform  to  certain  types  established  by  a 
few  pioneers.  Subsequent  authors  not  only  followed  the  general 
outlines  that  had  been  laid  down  by  the  greater  writers,  and  repro- 
duced their  topics,  but  even  copied  their  phraseology.  Imitation 
is  commoner  in  this  branch  of  Hterature  than  in  almost  any  other, 
and  the  majority  of  the  Hexaemera  are  consequently  lacking  in 
originality. 

At  the  same  time  the  Hexaemeral  writers  were  also  consciously 
or  unconsciously  under  the  influences  that  came  from  without, 
from  philosophy  and  science.  The  men  of  the  early  church,  com- 
pelled to  meet  the  arguments  of  pagans,  had  to  make  their  own 
accovmts  capable  of  standing  the  test  of  scrutiny;  and  often, 
going  beyond  a  mere  defense  of  their  faith,  they  attempted  to 
prove  that  the  Christian  doctrines,  including  those  of  Genesis, 
are  in  agreement  with  the  best  pagan  thought  or  superior  to  it. 
As  the  church  acquired  power,  the  polemic  tone  grew  sharper. 
Moreover, the  mingling  of  philosophical  material  with  that  furnished 
by  the  sacred  text  took  place  the  more  easily  because  many  of  the 
great  Fathers  had  been  educated  in  pagan  surroundings  and  per- 
sonally accepted  whatever  of  science  and  philosophy  did  not  con- 
flict with  their  religion.  The  philosophical  elements  which  in  this 
way  became  incorporated  in  the  tradition  form  the  subject  of  the 
present  discussion. 

Plato  is  the  first  of  the  philosophers  notably  to  influence  Hexae- 
meral thought.  Although  the  pre-Socratics  devoted  most  of  their 
energies  to  the  study  of  material  Nature,  very  little  trace  of  them, 
in  scattered  citations,  is  found  in  the  tradition.  They  tended 
toward  materiaHstic  views,  and  according  to  them  Deity  took 
little  or  no  part  in  the  making  of  the  universe.  Plato,  however, 
in  this  important  point  agreed  with  the  Christians.  In  the  Timaeus, 
although  that  dialogue  cannot  be  asserted  to  be  the  formal  expres- 
sion of  his  own  literal  belief,'  he  presented  for  the  first  time  an 

■  How  seriously  Plato  took  the  Timaeus  is  a  question  that  cannot  be  answered 
exactly,  but  whether  he  introduced  the  Demiurge  as  a  purely  mythical  figure,  or  had 
some  measure  of  belief  in  a  Deity,  his  feeling  in  the  dialogue  is  certainly  lofty  and 
religious.  The  question  was  much  discussed  in  ancient  times  whether  Plato  actually 
believed  in  a  creation  in  time,  or  presented  it  as  such  in  the  Timaeus  for  literary  and 


GREEK   PHILOSOPHY   AND   EARLY   GENESIS   COMMENTARIES  3 

account  of  the  creation  of  the  world  by  a  Deity  who  orders  it  for 
its  own  best  advantage.' 

In  addition  the  Timaeus  gives  a  plausible  account  of  the  mate- 
rial world,  and  it  is  a  fundamental  principle  of  the  dialogue  that 
material  things  conform  to  a-priori  ideal  forms  and  ultimately  to 
the  best  possible  ideals.  The  philosophical  schools  took  it  to  be 
the  formulation  of  Plato 's  deepest  thought  and  it  was  used  as  the 
basis  of  their  theories. 

Introducing  the  cosmological  portion  of  the  dialogue,  Plato 
states  the  principles  on  which  his  theories  are  based,  a  part  of  the 
work  which  was  especially  well  kno\vn.  Things  are  either  con- 
ceptual, and  eternally,  changelessly  existent,  or  they  are  sensible 
and  subject  to  becoming  and  perishing  (27D  ff.).  Everything 
that  becomes  must  have  some  cause  (28A),  and  if  the  artificer  of 
the  thing  looks  to  a  pattern  that  is  changeless,  the  result  is  fair; 
if  he  looks  to  the  created  as  a  pattern,  the  result  is  not  fair.     The 

pedagogical  reasons.  See  Zeller,  Philosophie  der  Griechen,  II,  i,  792;  .A.rcher-Hind 
on  Tim.  30A;  Paul  Shorey,  A.J. P.  X,  48.  The  Hexaemeral  writers  understood  him 
to  believe  in  a  creation  in  time. 

'  The  ideological  principle  does  not  appear  first  in  Plato,  but  he  was  the  first  to 
make  it  all  important  in  his  cosmology  and  to  ascribe  creation  to  a  personal,  reasoning, 
feeling  Deity  (with  the  reservation  indicated  in  the  preceding  note).  The  pre-Socratics 
uniformly  looked  upon  "creation"  as  the  evolution  of  the  world  from  chaos  to  a 
better  state,  without,  however,  making  the  development  a  purposed  process.  Hera- 
clitus  made  the  advance  of  stating  that  cosmic  action  depends  upon  law;  cf.  Benn, 
The  Greek  Philosophers,  I,  24-25;  Zeller,  I,  2,  663  S.  Diogenes  of  .\pollonia  asserted 
that  the  first  principle  must  be  capable  of  thought  because  "if  one  is  willing  to  con- 
sider, one  would  find  that  things  (like  daj-,  night,  summer,  winter,  rain,  wind,  and 
fair  weather)  are  arranged  in  the  best  possible  way,"  and  without  reason  such  an 
arrangement  could  not  have  been  made  (Diog.  Ap.  ap.  Simp.  Phys.,  152,  11  ff.). 
But  his  reason-endowed  first  principle  is  air,  which  per%-ades  all  things;  and  like  the 
other  pre-Socratics,  Diogenes  seems  to  have  lost  himself  in  mechanical  speculations 
as  to  the  air.  The  reasoning  element  could  not  in  any  case  have  been  characterized 
like  the  Demiurge.  The  teleological  idea  however  was  discussed  at  the  time  of 
Diogenes,  as  is  shown  by  the  passages  (Xen.  Comm.  i,  4;  iv,  3)  treated  by  S.  O. 
Dickerman,  De  argumcntis  qiiibusdam  e  structura  hominis  et  animalium  pelitis  (Halle, 
1909),  and  there  seems  to  have  been  a  treatise  by  an  author  as  yet  unknown  on  the 
providential  arrangement  of  the  parts  of  the  human  body;  cf.  also  J.  .\dam,  Religious 
Teachers  of  Greece,  349.  For  later  antiquity,  however,  and  for  the  authors  we  are 
considering,  it  is  clear  that  Plato  is  most  often  the  ultimate  source  for  the  teleological 
ideas. 


4  THE  HEXAEMERAL  LITERATURE 

world  is  visible  and  tangible,  and  is  therefore  the  product  of  becom- 
ing; it  must  therefore  have  a  creator  (28B).'  But  it  is  a  hard 
task  to  discover  the  maker  and  founder  of  this  world,  and  having 
discovered  him  it  is  impossible  to  tell  of  him  to  all  men ;  and  there- 
fore Plato  turns  to  the  examination  of  the  pattern  used  by  the 
Demiurge  (28C).  Since  the  world  is  fair  and  the  Demiurge  good, 
the  pattern  must  have  been  an  eternal  one  (29A).  Now  the  reason 
why  the  creator  made  this  world  is  that  he  is  good,  and  therefore 
can  begrudge  nothing,  but  wishes  to  hken  everything  as  nearly  as 
possible  to  himself  (29E).  He  therefore  took  the  chaotic  mass  of 
matter*  and  brought  it  into  order,  this  being  better  than  disorder 
(30A).  But  the  creator  must  always  act  for  the  best;  finding 
then  that  that  which  has  reason  is  always  better  than  that  which 
has  not,  and  that  reason  cannot  exist  without  soul,  he  made  this 
universe  a  living  creature  with  soul  and  mind  (30B).  The  pattern 
then  is  an  ideal  living  thing,  embracing  in  itself  all  ideal  beings, 
just  as  the  world  contains  all  material  beings;  it  is  the  fairest  of 
ideas  and  in  every  respect  perfect  (30CD),  and  it  is  one,  for  if 
there  were  two  or  more  such,  there  would  be  a  still  higher  idea 
that  would  embrace  them. 

The  influence  of  this  portion  of  the  Timaeus  upon  the  Hexae- 
mera  was  immense.  It  is  not  necessary  to  assert  that  teleology 
came  into  Christian  literature  from  Plato  alone,  but  it  must  be 
conceded  that  the  Timaeus  is  the  first  great  cosmology  wherein 
design  plays  the  chief  role,  and  that  in  the  Genesis  story  as  it 
stands  the  notion  of  preconception  in  the  divine  mind  is  not  present. 
Certainly  many  of  the  Hexaemeral  writers  employed  Platonic 
material  in  their  interpretation  of  Genesis. 

To  be  more  specific,  we  find  in  Plato  the  idea  that  God  is 
changelessly  good  and  can  perform  only  the  best  acts  (29E-30A), 
and  it  is  likewise  a  Platonic  principle  that  God  cannot  be  the  cause 
of  anything  evil.^    His  goodness  is  the  reason  for  creation  (29E). 

'  Philo  3,  17  ff.  uses  this  argument;  his  introduction  is  much  like  Plato's,  but 
with  Stoic  elements. 

^The  so-called  "secondary  matter,"  said  by  Zeller,  II,  i,  730  (following  him 
Baumker,  Das  Problem  der  Maierie,  Miinster,  1890,  142  ff.),  to  be  among  the  mytho- 
logical elements  of  the  Timaeus. 

3  Tim.  42DE;   Rep.  379B,  61 7E. 


GREEK   PHILOSOPHY   AND   EARLY   GENESIS   COMMENTARIES  5 

All  these  thoughts  are;Common  topics  of  the  Hexaemera,  especially 
the  last.  It  is  directly  quoted  by  Philo  and  Philoponus  and 
occurs  as  part  of  the  tradition  throughout  its  course.*  The  idea 
that  God  cannot  be  the  cause  of  evil  appears  in  various  connec- 
tions in  the  Hexaemeral  literature.^  In  the  polemic  against 
astrology  we  find  the  argument  that  if  the  stars  presage  evil  the 
blame  for  the  latter  must  fall  upon  their  maker,  God,  and  this  is 
impossible.^  Nor  would  our  writers  admit  that  God  is  the  cause 
of  the  harm  done  by  animals,  poisonous  plants  and  reptiles,  or 
thorns;  they  escape  all  these  difficulties  by  saying  that  man's 
sin  was  the  cause  of  all.'' 

The  assertion  that  there  is  an  ideal  pattern  is  echoed  through- 
out the  Hexaemera  in  various  forms  and  developments,  all  of  them 
to  be  traced  ultimately  to  the  Timaeus  as  the  source.  The  "intel- 
ligible world  "  of  Philo  Judaeus  is  directly  suggested  by  the  pattern 
in  the  Timaeus,  although  the  two  are  by  no  means  identical.  For 
Plato,  the  pattern  is  the  idea  of  the  living  thing,  independently 

'  Philo  6,  13;  Philoponus  273,  4;  240,  16;  Basil  9A;  Origen  De  prin.  II,  9,  6; 
Chrysostom  Horn,  in  Gen.  Ill,  3,  p.  35;  Maximus  ap.  Euthjinius  I,  6;  Athenagoras 
De  resurr.  12;  pseudo-Eucherius  8956;  Honorius  of  Autun  Eliuidarium  1112C; 
Theodoretus  Qu.  in  Gen.  I,  4;  Thierry  of  Chartres  Hex.  52;  Peter  Lombard  Sent. 
II,  I,  3;  Hildebert  of  Le  Mans  i2i8.\;  Erigena  De  div.  nat.  Ill,  2;  .\mold  of 
Chartres  1515B;  Augustine  BCD  XI,  21  (citing  Plato).  Cf.  R.  Gottwald  De 
Gregorio  Nazianzeno  Platonico,  Breslau,  1906,  25. 

'  It  was  found  in  the  pseudo-Salomonic  Wisdom;  Zeller  III,  2,  293  and  n.  5. 
See  also  Greg.  Nyss.,  Hex.  81D;  Philoponus  300,  2  ff.;  Odo  De  pecc.  orig.  in  Max. 
Bibl.  pair.  XXI,  228;  .■Vmoldof  Chartres  1539D.  Philo  25,  8  fl.  (d.Deconf.linguarum 
263,  8  ff.  C-W),  asserting  this  principle  to  show  that  God  could  not  create  the  evil 
elements  in  man,  but  left  them  to  the  angels,  is  directly  reminiscent  of  Tim.  42DE  flf. 
See  also  Gottwald  op.  cit.  26. 

3  Basil  132D;  Ambrose  196B;   .\ugustine  Lil.  II,  17,  35. 

*  Theophilus  ad  Autolycum  II,  17,  p.  106;  Chrysostom  IX,  4,  p.  79;  Theodoretus 
Qu.  in  Gen.  I,  18;  Procopius  io8.\;  .-Vugustine  .\fan.  I,  18,  Lit.  Ill,  18;  pseudo- 
Eucherius  900A,  901C;  Beda  Com.  196C,  200A,  Hex.  31D;  Hugo  of  St.  Victor  37D; 
Neckam  Dcnaturis  rcrum  II,  156;  .\bclard  Hex.  750D,  767B;  Honorius  ZTtw.  258D; 
Angelomus  120B,  122B;  Peter  Lombard  II,  15,  3;  Rupert  of  Deutz  231B;  Vincent 
of  Beauvais,  Spec.  hist.  I,  29;  .Mbertus  Magnus,  Summa  de  creat.  IV,  73,  5,  8;  Bruno 
156A;  Peter  Comestor  1062D,  1064.A.  For  the  idea  that  the  rose  at  first  had  no 
thorns,  and  the  like,  see  Milton,  P.L.  IV,  256:  "Flowers  of  all  hue  and  with- 
out thorn  the  rose;"  Basil  105B;  Ambrose  i7sC;  pseudo-Eustathius  7i6B;  Glyca 
45A. 


6  THE   HEXAEMERAL   LITERATURE 

existing;  while  for  Philo,  the  intelligible  world  is  the  ideal  counter- 

/  part  of  the  material  world/  and  it  is  definitely  stated  that  God 

(  made  it.^     Philo  was  influenced  by  the  Stoic  doctrines  also  in  this 

matter  {infra,  p.  15).     It  is  in  essentially  the  Philonic  form  that 

the  doctrine  of  the  pattern  is  found  in  the  Fathers,  among  whom 

Origen  may  be  especially'  mentioned.     The  neo-Platonists  passed 

;  on  the  doctrine  of  the  pattern-world  to  Augustine,  and  from  his 

time  until  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century  the  latter  was  the 

dominating  force  in  Christian  interpretation  of  Genesis.     At  that 

time  Platonic  influence  was  again  felt,  particularly  in  connection 

with  this  topic;   but  the  Christians  were  always  loath  to  say  that 

the  pattern  is  an  independently  existing  idea. 

Another  important  line  of  Platonic  influence  is  the  notion  that 
[matter  in  itself  resists  the  efforts  of  the  Demiurge  and  his  assistants 
[  to  carry  out  their  plans  for  its  better  ordering.^  In  the  latter 
part  of  the  dialogue,  wherein  the  nature  and  affections  of  the  human 
soul  and  body  are  discussed  (68Eff.),  the  constantly-recurring 
motive  is  the  contrast  of  the  divinely  made  reason  with  the  mortal 
portion  of  the  soul  and  the  mortal  body — products  of  Necessity — 
and  the  disorder  which  they  cause,  in  spite  of  the  efforts  of  the 
helpers  of  the  Demiurge  to  make  the  himian  economy  as  perfect 
as  possible.  This  natural  perversity  of  matter  forms  a  meta- 
physical limitation  on  the  power  of  the  Demiurge.  Similar  limita- 
tion is  indicated  by  Philo  (7,  5  ff.)  when  he  says  that  matter  in 
itself  is  too  weak  to  receive  all  the  benefits  that  the  power  of  God 
could  bestow ;  and  after  many  centuries  the  theme  of  the  resistance 
of  matter  to  the  divine  will  again  became  prominent  in  the  De 
mundi  universitate  of  Bernard  of  Tours. 

The  doctrines  concerning  time  in  the  Timaeus  (37C-39E)  are 
closely  connected  with  the  topic  outlined  above.  The  Demiurge 
wished  to  make  the  world  still  more  like  its  pattern,  but  the  pattern 
is  eternal  (atwwo?),  and  a  thing  generated  cannot  from  this  very 

'  E.g.,  he  includes  the  ideas  of  earth,  heaven,  air,  and  space,  9,  4  ff.  Cf.  Paul 
Shorey,  Unity  of  Plato's  Thought  37,  n.  256. 

•Plato  hints  at  this;  Rep.  597C;  Tim.  34A8.  He  does  not,  however,  develop 
it  as  a  doctrine. 

3  Plato  calls  this  resistance  Necessity.  Cf.  37D,  42A,  48A,  69B,  86E;  Paul 
Shorey,  A.J.P.  X,  61  f.,  on  Tim.  48.^;   J.  Adam,  op.  cit.  361. 


GREEK   PHILOSOPHY   AND   EARLY   GENESIS   COMMENTARIES         7 

fact  be  eternal.  Therefore  time,  the  image  of  eternity,  moving 
in  regular  mathematical  intervals  was  created,  and  the  luminaries 
were  made  to  mark  off  its  periods.  Time  was  therefore  made 
together  with  the  universe  and  did  not  previously  exist  (38B). 
Similarly  in  the  Hexaemera  eternity  is  distinguished  from  time' 
and  the  statement  is  made  that  time  did  not  exist  before  creation.' 
In  connection  with  this  came  the  idea  that  God  is  not  in  time,  a 
principle  of  which  Augustine  and  his  followers  made  use  in  answer- 
ing the  questions  how  God  came  to  create  the  world  so  late,  how 
an  immutable  God  could  be  moved  at  any  time  to  create,  and 
what  God  did  before  creation. 

The  remaining  portions  of  the  Tiniaeus  furnished  certain 
Hexaemeral  topics,  although  they  are  cited  less  frequently  than 
the  parts  outlined  above.  After  the  discussion  of  the  pattern, 
Plato  proceeds  to  say  that  the  world  is  material,  and  in  order 
to  be  visible  must  contain  fire,  and  to  be  tangible,  earth  (316).^ 
But  in  order  to  make  a  proportion  there  had  to  be  four  elements 
(31C),  and  from  the  fact  that  they  are  in  proportion  the  elements 
are  held  together  by  a  bond  of  friendship  (32C).''  The  elaborate 
mathematical  theory  of  the  derivation  of  the  elements  from  space 
exercised  no  influence  on  the  Hexaemera,  yet  the  accounts  of  the 
development  of  the  elements  from  the  primal  chaos,  as  given  by 
the  Platonizing  writers  of  the  twelfth  century,  Bernard  of  Tours 
and  Thierry  of  Chartres,  clearly  owe  much  to  this  portion  of  the 
Timaeus.  Plato  eventually  derives  matter  from  space,  but  in 
several  passages  (30A,  52D  ff.)  he  speaks  of  matter  ("secondary 
matter,"  p.  4,  n.  2)  as  existing  in  chaotic  form  before  creation,  the 

'  Hugo  of  Amiens  says  that  God  precedes  the  world  by  eternity,  not  by  time 
(1249B).  Honorius  Z)e  imagine  mundi  II,  i  applies  aeuum  to  God  alone;  iempora 
aeierna,  beginning  before  the  world  and  continuing  with  it  and  after  it,  to  the  arche- 
lypus  tnundus  and  to  the  angels;  tempts  to  the  world.  He  calls  the  latter  utnbra 
aeui  (cf.  Tint.  37D).     Cf.  Peter  Comestor  1056A,  pseudo-Eustathius  720B. 

'  Philo  8,  5  fif.;  Origen  Horn,  in  Gen.  147A;  Basil  13B;  .\mbrose  132A;  Augustine 
Lit.  V,  5,  Man.  I,  2;  Du  Bartas,  p.  2,  in  Sylvester's  translation;  Hugo  of  St.  Victor 
SAA;  Beda  Com.  204B;  Hrabanus  444B,  453B;  Remi  of  Aiuerre  54D;  Peter 
Lombard  II,  2,  4;  Bandinus  II,  2;  Giraldus  Camb.  345;  Arnold  of  Chartres  I5i6.\; 
Vincent  of  Beauvais,  Spec.  hist.  I,  2;   Peter  Comestor  loc.  cU.  I 

i  Cited  by  Philoponus  78,  26;   119,  i;   Basil  25A;   .Augustine  Lit.  Ill,  4,  6. 

*  Cf.  Basil  33A. 


8  THE   HEXAEMERAL   LITERATURE 

"nurse"  of  material  things  taking  on  one  form  after  another  (5 2D), 
and  the  four  elements  as  it  were  having  traces  of  their  own  forms 
(53B).  The  early  Hexaemeral  writers  had  not  implied  that  in 
the  first-made  chaos  the  elements  were  not  present  in  their  proper 
forms.'  Bernard,  however,  speaks  of  a  material  first  principle, 
hyle,  existing  in  a  state  of  confusion,  taking  on  one  quality  after 
another,  although  the  constant  change  centers  about  the  forms  of 
the  four  elements:  erat  hyle  naturae  uultus  antiquissimus,  genera- 
tionis  uterus  itidefessus ,  formarum  prima  suhiectio,  materia  corporum, 
substantiae  fundamentum  ....  irreguieta  est  nee  potuit  hyle 
meminisse  quando  uel  nascentium  formis  uel  occidentium  refiuxionibus 
intermissius  adiretur  .  .  .  .  et  quod  figurarum  omnium  susceptione 
conuertitur,  nullius  suae  formae  signaculo  specialiter  insignitur. 
uerum  quoquo  pacto  frenata  est  licentia  discursandi,  ut  elementorum 
Jirmioribus  inniteretur  substantiis  eisque  quaternis  uelut  radicibus 
inhaereret  materies  inquieta  {De  mundi  universitate  10,  47  ff.).  Noys, 
the  *'mind"  of  God,  brings  the  four  elements  out  of  the  confusion 
and  the  present  world  is  developed.  Thierry  {Hex.  60-61)  has 
reference  to  the  same  passages  of  the  Timaeus  when  he  defines  the 
informitas  of  Gen.  1:2  as  the  hyle  or  chaos  of  the  philosophers. 
Such  was  the  informitas  that  Httle  or  no  difference  between  the 
elements  could  be  perceived,  and  this  difference  was  overlooked 
by  the  philosophers;  but  Plato  saw  it  and  declared  that  the  con- 
fusion of  the  elements  underlay  the  elements,  not  as  preceding 
them  in  time,  but  as  confusion  precedes  separation. 

In  Timaeus  32C  ff.  the  nature,  shape,  and  motion  of  the  material 
world  is  discussed,  and  with  34C  the  topic  of  the  world  soul  is 
taken  up.  Though  there  is  but  one  slight  allusion  to  Plato's 
elaborate  account  of  its  makingj^*  it  is  probable  that  even  in  early 

'  Descriptions  of  chaos  as  a  confusion  of  already  developed  elements  are  some- 
times difficult  to  distinguish  from  the  Platonic  chaos  about  to  be  described.  This  is 
perhaps  due  partially  to  Ovid  Met.  I,  15  ff.:  utque  erat  et  tellus  illic  et  pontus  et  aer,\ 
sic  erat  instabilis  tellus,  innabilis  unda,  \  lucis  egens  aer.  nulli  sua  forma  manebat. 
The  later  lines  nam  caelo  terras  et  terris  abscidit  uttdas  |  et  liquidum  spisso  secreuU  ab 
aere  caelum  however  show  that  the  chaos  was  made  up  of  the  elements.  Du  Bartas 
follows  this  passage,  first  stating  that  God  made  the  elements  and  then  that  they 
lacked  their  present  characteristics.  There  are  also  descriptions  of  a  primary  matter 
like  the  substrate  of  Aristotle,  mere  potentiality;  cf.  Vincent  of  Beauvais  Spec.  hist. 
I,  16. 

'  Justin  Apol.  I,  chap.  60. 


GREEK   PHILOSOPHY  AND   EARLY   GENESIS  COMMENTARIES         9 

times  certain  Christians  identified  Plato's  world  soul  and  the 
Spirit  of  God  in  Gen.  1:2,  for  Jerome  found  it  necessary  to  deny 
the  identity  of  the  two.'  Further  protests  were  made  by  the 
more  orthodox  writers  of  the  twelfth  century,"  but  their  con- 
temporaries Abelard,  Thierry  of  Chartres,  and  Bernard  of  Tours, 
under  the  influence  of  the  revival  of  Platonism  at  that  time,  were 
believers  in  the  world  soul.^ 

In  41 A  ff.  the  Demiurge  addresses  the  gods.''  The  gods  are 
not  immortal,  but  shall  never  be  destroyed  without  the  consent 
of  the  Demiurge :  to  make  the  world  complete,  three  other  classes 
of  beings  (the  inhabitants  respectively  of  the  air,  earth,  and  water, 
since  the  gods  are  conceived  of  as  fiery)^  must  be  created  (41B), 
but  if  the  Demiurge  himself  made  them  they  would  be  the  equals 
of  the  gods.  The  immortal  part  of  the  soul  therefore  was  made 
by  the  Demiurge,  while  his  helpers  fashioned  the  mortal  portion 
and  the  body. 

The  remainder  of  the  dialogue  discusses  psychology,  the  deriva- 
tion of  the  elements  from  primary  space,  the  properties  of  matter 

■  Hebr.  Qu.  in  Gen.  987B  ff.:  ex  quo  intellegimus  non  de  spirilu  mundi  did,  tU 
nonnulli  arbilranlur,  sed  de  spirilu  sancto,  qui  et  ipse  uiuifualor  omnium  a  principio 
dicilur  (cited  by  Strabus  Gloss.  Ord.  70B).  Augustine's  (earlier)  attitude  was  more 
liberal;  Lib.  imp.  4,  17:  potesl  auletn  et  aliter  inlellegi,  ut  spirilum  dei,  uitalem  crea- 
turam,  qua  uniuersus  isle  uisibilis  mundus  atque  omnia  corporea  continentur  et  mouentur, 
intellegamus,  cui  dens  omnipolcns  tribuit  uim  quandam  sibi  seruietuii  ad  operandum 
in  lis  quae  gignuntur.  Jerome 's  objection  might  include  in  its  application  those  whose 
belief  was  tinctured  with  Stoicism;   infra,  p.  18. 

'  Rupert  of  Deutz  2osD  (mentioning  Plato);  Hugo  of  .\miens  1255.1;  .Ingelo- 
mus  116A;   Peter  Comestor  1057A. 

J  Abelard  believed  that  Plato  and  his  school  held  an  essentially  Christian  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity;  cf.  Theol.  Chr.  I,  v.,  especially  1144A;  Intr.  ad  theol.  I,  .^vii-.^x. 
But  in  Hex.  735B  flf.  he  said  that  "spirit  of  God"  might  be  simply  wind.  Thierry, 
discussing  Gen.  i :  2,  says  that  Plato  called  the  spirit  the  world  soul  and  the  Christians 
the  Holy  Spirit  {Hex.  61-62).  Bernard  {De  mund.  univ.  13,  147  ff.)  describes  the 
making  of  the  world  soul  in  language  highly  reminiscent  of  the  Timaeus,  deriN-ing  it, 
however,  like  the  neo-Platonists,  from  the  Noys  by  emanation.  William  of  Conches 
to  some  extent  shared  these  opinions  (cf.  K.  Werner,  "Wilhelms  von  .Vuvergne  Vcr- 
hiiltnis  zu  den  Platonikern  dcs  xii.  Jahrhunderts, "  Sitzb.  d.  Ak.  Wiss.,  Phil.-Hisl. 
KL,  Wien,  74,  135)  and  mentions  them  in  Dc  phil.  mundi  45D. 

<  Citations  in  Abelard  747.V;    Neckam  22;    Philoponus  134,  24. 

s  Cf.  39E,  which  is  probably  the  source  for  the  statements  assigning  one  kind  of 
being  to  each  element,  as  Honorius  De  imagine  mutuJi  I,  3;  Philo  51,  14-15;  Giraldus 
Cambr.  343.    Augustine  Lit.  Ill,  9  ascribes  this  view  to  quidam  philosophi. 


lO  THE  HEXAEMERAL  LITERATURE 

as  dependent  upon  the  shape  of  the  elementary  corpuscles,  and  the 
physiology  of  man,  all  of  which  may  be  dismissed  after  the  dis- 
cussion of  a  few  special  topics  that  made  their  way  into  the  Hexae- 
mera.  Philo  's  passage  in  praise  of  sight  and  light  {De  op.  mund. 
17,  II  ff.)  is  based  upon  Timaeus  47AfTf.;  the  statement  of  Philo- 
ponus  (140,  5  ff.)  that  Plato  assigned  the  cubical  shape  to  the  earth 
corpuscle  is  a  reminiscence  of  Tim.  55D;  and  there  are  references 
to  Plato's  assertion  that  there  are  two  kinds  of  fire — that  which 
burns,  and  that  which  does  not  burn  but  gives  off  light;'  as  well 
as  to  the  statement  that  coagulated  blood  becomes  flesh  and  sinew 
{Tim.  82C).^  Philoponus  (122,  24)  remarks  that  in  the  universe 
we  cannot  properly  speak  of  "up  and  down"  but  only  of  "center 
and  circumference,"  possibly  with  reference  to  Tim.  62C  ff.,  though 
he  was  famihar  with  Aristotle  and  could  have  found  the  same  in 
De  caelo  26Sb,  20.  Plato  however  is  probably  the  source  for  the 
topic  that  man  is  erect  in  stature  and  thereby  shows  his  kinship 
with  heaven,  while  the  beasts  are  inclined  toward  the  earth.^ 
While  the  Timaeus  is  the  prime  source  of  Platonic  influence 
among  the  Fathers,  certain  topics  can  be  traced  to  other  dialogues. 
Among  these  is  the  idea  quoted  from  Pindar  in  Theaetetus  173E, 
that  the  mind  can  traverse  the  universe  independently  of  the  body/ 
Again,  the  very  common  comparison  of  man,  the  microcosm,  to  the 
universe  is  suggested  in  several  Platonic  passages,  notably  Philebus 
29A  ff.,  where  Socrates,  having  shown  that  the  body  of  man  is 

'Basil  121C;  Ambrose  191D;  Philoponus  76,  7ff.;  Neckam  I,  71.  Cf.  Tim. 
4SB,  S8C. 

'Basil  168A;  Philoponus  119,  i6fif.;  Procopius  105D;  Theodosius  Melitenus 
4,3- 

3  Tim.  90A,  92A  ff.  The  notion  is  found  before  Plato  in  Xen.  Comm.  i,  4,  11. 
How  common  it  was  may  be  seen  from  the  citations  collected  by  S.  O.  Dickerman, 
op.  cil.,  92  ff.,  to  which  shoiJd  be  added  Alcimus  Avitus;  Ambrose  24SD;  Philoponus 
269,5;  Augustine  Man.  I,  ly,  Lib.  imp.  16,  60;  Freculphus  CArow.  I,  3;  Glyca  172A 
(citing  Greg.  Nyss.);  pseudo-Eucherius  901  A;  Beda  Hex.  29D,  Com.  205C;  Giral- 
dus  Camb.  348;  Hrabanus  460C;  Angelomus  12 2D;  Wandalbert  639A:  Rupert  of 
Deutz  267D;  Procopius  117B;  Bernard  of  Tours  55,  27  ff.;  Basilius  Seleuc.  36AB; 
Peter  Comestor  1063D.  Ovid  Met.  I,  84-86  is  often  cited  in  this  connection  but  is 
evidently  not  the  ultimate  source  of  the  topic. 

<  Philo  23,  12  ff.;  Ambrose  259C  and  Ep.  43,  15  (the  latter  cited  by  Cohn- 
Wendland,  Fhilonis  Alex.  op.  I,  Lxxxx);  Pisides  738  ff.;  Du  Bartas,  166  in  Sylvester's 
translation. 


GREEK   PHILOSOPHY   AND   EARLY   GENESIS   COMMENTARIES       II 

composed  of  the  four  elements,  drawn  from  the  four  elements  in 
the  universe,  suggests  that  the  soul  of  man  may  be  drawn  from  the 
soul  of  the  universe.'  In  Tim.  44D  the  shape  of  the  head  is  com- 
pared to  that  of  the  universe,  and  in  81 A  the  whole  body  is  said 
to  work  on  the  same  principles  as  those  of  the  universe. 

Plato  is  accorded  respectful  treatment,  in  general,  by  the 
Hexaemeral  writers.  There  were, however,  certain  Platonic  assump- 
tions that  the  church  could  not  accept,  especially  the  theory  of  the 
eternity  of  matter,^  the  doctrine  of  metempsychosis,  which  Origen 
was  accused  of  holding,^  and  the  theory  that  the  ideal  pattern  of 
creation  is  independent  of  God.'' 

With  the  exception  of  Philo  and  the  Platonizing  Christians  of 
the  twelfth  century  our  writers  show  their  familiarity  with  the 
Timacus  by  quotation  rather  than  by  weaving  it  into  their  work. 
Even  Philoponus,  who  quotes  the  Timaeus  more  frequently  than 
any  other  Hexaemeral  writer,  seldom  passes  beyond  quotation. 
But  Platonism  in  its  derivative  forms,  as  has  been  said  above, 

'  Cf.  Philo  51,  6  ff.;  Honorius  Eliicid.  iii6BfiF.;  Giraldus  Camb.  347;  Bernard 
of  Tours  55,  15  ff.;  Arnold  of  Chartres  1528B  fl.  In  a  somewhat  different  form, 
comparing  man  and  the  universe  in  parts  other  than  the  four  elements,  the  topic  is 
found  in  the  Jewish  non-canonical  books.  Cf.  also  Ambrose  265.^  ff.;  Honorius 
Hex.  258C  ff.,  pseudo-Eustathius  749Aff.;  Wandalbert  639A;  Remi  of  Au.xerre  57B; 
Raleigh  I,  2,  5;  Bernard  of  Tours  passim.  On  the  origin  of  the  topic  see  Lobeck 
Aglaophamus  II,  921  ff. 

'The  Christians  probably  had  in  mind  the  passages  concerned  with  "secondary 
matter";  see  Biiumker,  op.  cit.  143.  Theophilus  II,  4,  p.  54  in  a  polemical  passage 
mentions  the  Platonists  especially,  and  in  other  i)assages  of  the  same  sort  Plato  prob- 
ably shares  the  polemic  with  the  Epicureans  and  pagan  philosophy  generally.  Cf.  Basil 
8.-\;  .■\mbrose  123.^;  Lactantius  Inst.  II,  8,  8;  Origen  Com.  in  Gen.  48.^;  .Augustine 
Man.  I,  6;  Rupert  of  Deutz  202C;  .Anastasius  Sinaita  S57C;  Procopius  Com.  in 
Gen.  29Aff.;  Greg.  Naz.  Poemata  dogmalica  IV,  3-4;  Alaximus  ap.  Eus.  Praep.rc. 
Vn,  22  ff.  The  Latin  writers  of  the  Middle  .\ges  often  repeated  the  statement  of 
Ambrose  (123.-^),  that  Gen.  1:1  refutes  Plato,  who  had  three  principles,  God,  the 
pattern,  and  matter,  and  .Aristotle,  who  had  three,  matter,  form,  and  the  opcralorium; 
cf.  Remi  53D;  Peter  Lombard  II,  i,  i;  Bandinus  II,  i;  Hugo  of  Amiens  i25i.-\; 
Hugo  of  St.  Victor  33B;  Arnold  of  Chartres  i5is.-\;  Peter  Comestor  1055B  (who 
adds  Epicurus). 

'Origen  was  strenuously  opposed  by  Arnold  of  Chartres  1522.^;  Gregor>'  of 
Nazianzus  {Poem.  dog.  VII,  7)  opposes  metempsychosis.  Cf.  Glyca  148B;  Rupert 
of  Deutz  266B. 

<  Cf.  .Ambrose  124B,  followed  by  Rupert  of  Deutz  I,  i;  Theodoretus  i04.\ 
(mentioning  Plato). 


12  THE   HEXAEMERAL   LITERATURE 

became  an  integral  part  of  Augustine's  interpretation,  and  through 
the  latter  to  a  certain  extent  colored  all  later  thought. 

The  reason  for  the  limited  knowledge  of  Plato  in  the  Hexaemeral 
tradition  is  the  lapse  of  Greek  learning  in  the  Middle  Ages.  From 
the  time  of  Augustine  the  western  church  knew  the  Timaeus  only 
in  translation  and  in  citation;  and  during  the  Middle  Ages  the 
translation  of  Chalcidius,^  which  extends  only  through  53C,and  that 
of  Cicero^  were  the  sole  sources  with  the  exception  of  such  informa- 
tion as  could  be  gained  from  citations  in  Augustine  and  the  materials 
furnished  by  Macrobius,  Boethius,  and  the  De  dogmate  Platonis  of 
Apuleius.  It  seems  probable  that  Augustine  did  not  use  the 
Greek  text  but  the  translation  of  Victorinus.^  Abelard,  who  had 
some  knowledge  of  Greek,  knew  Plato  indirectly.'' 

A  contributory  cause  for  the  respect  that  is  shown  for  Plato 
by  the  Christian  writers  was  the  belief  prevalent  in  early  times 
that  he  was  acquainted  with  the  Hebrew  sacred  literature  and  drew 
therefrom.  This  belief  was  founded  upon  the  actual  or  supposed 
agreements  between  Plato  and  the  Scriptures,  and  seems  first  to 
have  been  expressed  by  Aristobulus.^  Philo  asserted  that  the 
Hebrew  literature  was  the  source  of  Greek  philosophy^  and  the 
early  Christians  said  that  Plato  borrowed  from  the  Bible.^  This 
is  common  in  Philoponus,^  and  Augustine  reports   that  certain 

'  See  Wrobel,  Plat.  Timaeus  interprete  Chalcidio,  pp.  xii  ff.  Ueberweg-Heinze, 
Gesch.  d.  Phil.  II,  172;  De  Wulf,  Hist,  de  la  phil.  medievale  (2d  ed.),  150.  Gunzo  of 
Novara  (d.  967)  seems  to  have  carried  a  copy  of  this  translation  into  Germany  (see 
G.  Becker,  Catalogi  Bibliothecarum  Antiqui,  Bonn,  1885,  64).  The  short  commentary 
by  William  of  Conches  is  founded  on  Chalcidius. 

'  Becker,  op.  cit.  201,  indicates  that  Cicero's  translation  was  in  the  library  at  Bee. 

J  Boissier,  La  fin  du  paganisme,  I,  307. 

*S.  M.  Deutsch,  Peter  Abaelard,  58;  McCabe,  Peter  Abelard,  86-87,  120. 

sAp.  Euseb.  Praep.  ev.  XIII,  12  ff.;  see  Zeller  III,  2,  277  S.  Hermippus  had 
previously  declared  that  Greek  philosophers  drew  from  Hebrew  sources;  Zeller  III, 
1,  302,  n.  I. 

*  Zeller  III,  2,  393-94,  and  notes. 

'Justin  Martyr  Apol.  I,  59-60,  says  that  Plato  took  his  conception  of  chaotic 
matter  from  Gen.,  chap.  I,  and  the  division  of  the  world  soul  (Tim.  36B)  from  the 
narrative  of  the  setting  up  of  the  cross  by  Moses  in  the  wilderness. 

8Philoponus  273,  4ff.  claims  that  Tim.  29E  is  derived  from  the  Bible;  the  same 
is  asserted  (78,  15  ff.)  of  Tim.  30A;  of  Tim.  41B  (4,  25;  134,  242.);  and  of  Tim.  37C 
(303,  27  ff.). 


GREEK   PHILOSOPHY   AND    EARLY   GENESIS   COMMENTARIES       I3 

Christians  thought  that  Plato  met  the  prophet  Jeremiah  in  Egypt. 
He  points  out,  however,  that  this  was  chronologically  impossible' 
and  without  stating  that  Plato  and  his  followers  knew  the  Scrip- 
tures simply  says  "  None  approach  us  nearer  than  they.  "^  Never- 
theless in  the  middle  ages  Peter  Comestor  believed  that  Plato  read 
the  Mosaic  books  in  Egypt  and  confounded  the  spirit  of  God 
(Gen.  1 : 2)  with  the  world  soul.^ 

No  one  work  of  Aristotle,  like  the  Timaeus  of  Plato,  was  the 
source  of  Aristotelian  influence  on  the  Hexaemera;  much  philo- 
sophical and  scientific  material,  however,  was  drawn  from  his 
writings,  and  during  the  period  when  he  was  the  dominating 
philosopher  Aristotelian  authority  is  constantly  cited.  It  would 
be  an  endless  and  profitless  task  to  point  out  all  the  Aristotelian 
elements  in  the  Hexaemera,  and  we  shall  therefore  consider  but  a 
few  of  the  more  important  lines  of  his  influence. 

It  has  already  been  stated  that  the  Platonic  theory  of  the 
elements,  with  its  elaborate  mathematical  demonstration,  was  not 
employed  by  the  Hexaemeral  writers.  The  simpler  Aristotelian 
theory  of  the  interaction  of  the  elements  by  means  of  their  like 
qualities  however  was  generally  adopted.  In  De  generatione  et 
corruptione  ii,  4  Aristotle  assigns  two  qualities  out  of  the  four, 
hot-cold,  wet-dry,  to  each  element,  opposites  never  being  joined. 
Fire  is  hot  and  dry;  air.  hot  and  wet;  water,  cold  and  wet;  earth, 
cold  and  dry.  When  the  dryness  of  the  fire  overcomes  the  wetness 
of  the  air  the  two  merge,  and  through  such  an  intermediate  change 
an  element  can  unite  with  the  one,  both  of  whose  qualities  are 
opposite  to  its  own.  Similar  explanations  of  interaction  are  fre- 
quently   made   in    the   Hexaemera."     We   also   find   mention    of 

'  DCD,  VIII,  II.  .\ugustine  says  that  he  had  formerly  believed  the  report  and 
had  included  it  in  his  writings  (i.e.,  De  doclr.  Chr.  II,  28). 

^  DCD,  Will   s- 

J  Peter  Comestor  105 7.\:  htinc  locum  male  inlellexit  Plato  dictum  hoc  putans  de 
auima  mundi;  cf.  Rupert  of  Deutz  2050.  Other  passages  of  Peter  Comestor  (e.g., 
1061D,  1066C)  similarly  accuse  Plato  of  mistaking  the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures. 

<  Basil  SgCff.;  .\mbrose  163D  ff;  Chalcidius  Com.  in  Tim.  316;  Honorius 
De  im.  mund.  I,  3;  I)u  Bartas,  31,  in  Sylvester's  translation;  Philoponus  iSo,  19  ff.; 
Bernard  of  Tours  62,  50  ff.;  Giraldus  Camb.  343.  But  Cosmas  123  ff.  contests  the 
theorv. 


14  THE  HEXAEMERAL  LITERATURE 

Aristotle 's  doctrines  of  qualities  and  the  substrate,'  and  of  the  fifth 
element,^  and  his  division  of  the  soul  into  its  various  faculties;^ 
and  the  Historia  animalium  is  a  source  of  some  of  the  stories  about 
animals  found  in  the  Physiologus,  the  compilation  used  by  Basil 
and  his  followers.  Augustine  (Lit.  V,  21,  42)  mentions  with  dis- 
approval the  doctrine  that  the  upper  regions  are  under  divine 
guidance,  while  the  lower  are  subject  to  disordered,  fortuitous 
motion,  doubtless  with  reference  to  Aristotle.  The  criticism  was 
made  both  by  pagans  and  by  Christians  that  according  to  Aristotle 
God  did  not  concern  himself  with  the  government  of  the  lower 
world,"*  and  Aristotle  may  therefore  be  criticized  in  the  polemics 
of  the  Christians  against  the  notion  that  the  world  is  uncreated 
and  eternal,  or  self-developed,^  a  doctrine  which  would  naturally 
be  attributed  also  to  the  Epicureans. 

Although  the  Stoics  were  materialists,  their  influence  upon  the 
Hexaemeral  writers,  direct  or  indirect,  was  considerable.  They 
divided  the  world  into  the  passive  principle,  formless  matter,  and 
the  active  principle,  the  logos  in  it,  God.^  The  latter  to  be  sure 
is  not  an  intelligible  being,  but  is  spoken  of  as  "technical  fire";  it 
receives,  however,  the  attribute  of  providence  and  plays  the  part  of 
reason  (logos)  in  the  world.'  In  the  Hexaemera  likewise  contrasts 
are  made  in  the  Stoic  fashion  between  the  active  and  the  passive.* 

'  Zeller  II,  2,  315  ff.;  references  to  the  Aristotelian  and  neo- Platonic  principle 
that  the  two  are  separable  only  in  thought  are  frequently  found.  Origen  De  prin. 
IV,  I,  zz;   Basil  21A. 

^  Basil  258;  Ambrose  134C;  Anastasius  Sin.  858A;  Bernard  of  Tours  38,  80  ff.; 
Vincent  of  Beauvais  Spec.  nat.  Ill,  3. 

3  Aristotle  De  anim.  414  029  fF.  enumerates  five  (vegetative,  sensory,  logical, 
appetitive,  motor)  of  which  the  first  three  are  mentioned  by  our  authors;  Greg. 
Nyss.  De  horn.  op.  144D  ff.;   Procopius  117C. 

■•  Aristotle  held  that  the  ether,  of  which  the  upper  regions  are  composed,  is 
involved  in  a  circular  motion,  but  that  the  very  nature  of  the  elements  necessitates 
other  and  less  regular  movement  in  the  lower  regions;   cf.  De  caelo  292  622  ff.;  Zeller 

II,  2,  437-39>  468.  For  the  criticism  of  Aristotle  by  pagans  and  Christians,  see 
Zeller  ibid.  468,  n.  i,  also  Plut.  De  defectu  orac.  423D. 

5  Cf.  Philo  2,  12  ff.  6  Diog.  Laer.  VII,  134. 

'  Heinze,  Die  Lehre  vom  Logos,  83-84. 

*  Fire  and  air  are  said  to  be  active,  earth  and  water  passive;    Augustine  Lit. 

III,  10;  Lactant.  Inst.  H,  9,  21;  cf.  Plut.  De  com.  not.  49,  i,  p.  1085;  Nemes.  De  nat. 
horn.  5,  164  Matth.;  Cic.  Acad,  i,  26.  Philo  2,  i6  ff.,  and  Basil  33B  use  Stoic  language 
in  the  contrast  of  the  activity  of  God  with  the  passivity  of  matter. 


GREEK   PHILOSOPHY   AND   EARLY   GENESIS   COMMENTARIES       1 5 

The  most  important  influence  of  the  Stoics,  however,  came  in 
their  doctrine  of  the  logos  in  its  various  forms.  When  Philo, 
adopting  the  Platonic  theory  of  an  ideal  pattern  of  the  universe, 
stated  that  this  pattern  existed  in  the  divine  reason,  he  employed 
the  Stoic  term  logos,  which  they  had  used  to  signify  the  reason 
of  man  (a  part,  as  they  held,  of  the  universal  logos  mentioned  above) 
both  when  it  remains  in  man 's  breast  (eVSm^ero?)  and  when  it  is 
expressed  in  speech  {vpo<f)opiK6<i)  .^  Philo  calls  the  ideal  pattern 
of  the  world  God's  logos,  on  the  analogy  of  human  reason,^  and 
Theophilus  of  Antioch  says  that  the  Son,  the  Logos  of  God,  was 
iv8id6eTo<;  before  the  creation,  but  TrpocfyopiKo^  when  he  goes 
forth  to  be  the  agent  of  creation.^  Theophilus  does  not  speak 
of  two  logoi,  but  of  the  divine  Word  in  two  phases,  first,  abiding 
in  God  in  eternity  and  so  containing  the  ideas  of  all  that  God  is 
to  create,  and  second,  sent  forth  by  God  as  his  means  of  communi- 
cation and  the  instrument  of  creation  {Ad  Autol.  II,  10,  80).  He 
does  not  specifically  state  that  the  Word  in  its  first  state  contains 
the  world  of  ideas,  but  since  he  calls  it  God's  ''counsellor,  mind, 
and  intelligence"  and  says  that  God  made  heaven  and  earth 
through  his  word  {op.  cit.  80)  we  must  assume  that  this  was  his 
meaning  and  that  he  agrees  herein  with  Philo,  whom  indeed  he 
probably  follows. 

Origen  lays  even  more  stress  than  Theophilus  upon  the  phase 
of  the  Word  called  by  the  latter  evhaderos.  The  Word  or  Wisdom 
contains  all  the  forms  {species)  of  things  to  be  created,  whether 
substantial  or  accidental,  and  was  itself  created  prior  to  these 
{De  princ.  I,  2,  131B).  God's  Wisdom  never  existed  apart  from 
him  {ibid.  IV,  i,  28).     After  Origen,  the  use  of  the  terms  Son, 

'  For  a  discussion  of  the  terms  see  Heinze  op.  cit.  140  ff. 

'  Zeller  (III,  2,  423-24)  is  probably  right  (against  Heinze.  op.  cit.  231  ff.)  in 
saying  that  Philo  did  not  formally  distinguish  a  divine  iv&i.6,deTo%  and  ■K-po<popiK6t 
logos.     Philo  uses  the  two  terms  with  reference  to  the  human  mind. 

i  Theophilus  II,  10,  78:  Exuvoiv  6  6tbi  rbv  iavroO  \6yov  4v5iddrrov  iv  toU  ISloit 
(TTrXa^x*''''^'  i^ivin)a(v  avrbv,  kt\.  Ibid.  22,  I18:  Ilpi  fip  ri  yivtiidai.  tovtov  fix*' 
ffVfi^ovXov,  iavTov  vovv  Kal  (pp6vT)<riv  flcra.  oirbrf  5i  ijdfKrjatv  6  0(6%  Troiijffai  Sffa  it^vXev- 
(raro,  tovtov  Tbv\6'yov  tyivvi\aev  vpo(f>opiKbv,  .  .  .  .  ov  KtvwOtU  oirris  roO  Xbyov,  dXXd 
X670V  7«i'i'rJ<rov  Kai  rip  X67((j  avroO  Sid  iroKrij  ofuXQi'.  Cf.  Athenagoras  Suppl.  lo  and 
24;  Tatian  Oral.  5. 


l6  THE  HEXAEMERAL  LITERATURE 

Word,  and  Wisdom,  equivalent  to  logos,  persisted  throughout  the 
course  of  the  tradition.^ 

Likewise  the  Stoic  doctrine  of  o-Tre/aftaTt/co?  Xo'709,  once  it  had 
been  enunciated,  found  a  place  in  some  of  the  more  important 
Hexaemera.  This  logos,  as  its  name  implies,  was  according  to 
the  Stoics  a  force  in  matter  which  brought  about  its  development 
along  certain  determined  lines  in  the  same  way  that  seeds  develop. 
Used  in  the  singular  number,  the  term  is  applied  to  God,  who 
remains  in  this  form  in  the  world,  first  bringing  forth  the  four 
elements  ;==  used  in  the  plural  number,  it  refers  to  certain  powers 
that  take  over  matter  and  give  it  form,  and  then  remain  in  the 
world  to  perpetuate  the  species  thus  originated.^  In  the  De 
opificio  mundi  of  Philo  there  is  a  trace  of  this  Stoic  doctrine  in  the 
statement  (13,  21  ff.)  that  the  reproduction  of  plants  is  due  to 
logoi  which  lie  concealed  in  their  germinal  elements;  the  term 
airepiiaTLKO'i  Xoyo';,  too,  is  found  in  Philo.''  After  Philo  the 
neo-Platonists  adopted  the  idea.  With  Aristotle  they  held  that 
matter  and  form  are  never  separable,^  and  they  sometimes  applied 
the  term  logos  to  the  forms  of  matter,  each  a  real  concept,  and 
distinguished,  as  in  the  Stoic  and  Philonic  systems,  by  always  being 
connected  with  the  notion  of  energy.^  Among  the  Christians, 
Augustine  took  the  idea  of  seminal  logoi  and  used  it  in  connection 
with  his  peculiar  explanation  of  the  Hexaemeron.  When  God 
made  all  things  together,  therein  were  contained  whatever  things 
are  in  the  universe — sun,  moon,  stars,  earth,  and  water— and  what- 
ever was  later  developed  out  of  them,  in  the  same  manner  that 
the  tree  is  contained  in  the  seed  {Lit.  V,  23,  45).     To  this  Augustine 

'  For  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  see  R.  Gottwald,  op.  cit.  28. 

^  Diog.  Laer.  VII,  136;   Heinze,  iii. 

3  Heinze  114  and  n.  2.  The  logoi  are  spoken  of  both  absolutely  and  as  being 
contained  in  God;  Plac.  I,  7,  33. 

-t  See  Heinze  239  ff. 

5  Plot.  Enii.  IV,  3,  9:  5e?5^  t(J)  \67y  tijv  etaoSov  koX  ttjv  ^^^i^xweriv  StSacr/caXias  Kal 
ToO  cra^oOs  x'^P'"  yiyveardat  vofxlt^eiv.  iirel  ovk  fjv  8t€  ovk  i^f/vx^To  t65€  t6  ttSv  oi55'  ivijv 
6Tt  aw/jLOL  vtpeiffrriKei.  xf/vxv^  dTroi/crryj,  oiid^  vXt]  irork  8t€  a.Kb(riX7}ro%  fjv  dXXd  iirivoriaai. 
ravra  x<^P^^ovTas  aira  an '   dXX^Xwv  ol6v  re. 

'Heinze  318;  Zeller  III,  2,  609  and  n.  7.  Here  again  the  first  forms  produced 
are  said  to  be  the  elements. 


GREEK   PHILOSOPHY   AND   EARLY   GENESIS  COMMENTARIES       1 7 

joins  the  statement  that  formless  matter  precedes  form  not  in 
time  but  only  in  origin.  He  denotes  the  subjects  of  the  first  crea- 
tion variously  by  the  terms  aeternae  rationes  {Lit.  IV,  24,  41), 
causales  rationes  {ibid.  VI,  14,  15;  VII,  22,  23;  cf.  causaliter 
conditus  VI,  9;  ratio  creandi  hominis  VI,  9),  causae  (VI,  11,  15,  18), 
primordiales  causae  (VI,  10),  rationes  primordiales  (VI,  11),  elcmcnta 
(VI,  10),  primae  causae  (VI,  15).  The  use  of  the  term  ratio,  which 
often  means  "idea,"  shows  probably  that  the  general  notion  came 
to  Augustine  from  the  neo-Platonists,  but  he  constantly  returns 
to  the  comparison  with  the  seed,  which  is  more  akin  to  Stoicism. 
In  his  belief  that  in  this  manner  the  first  creation  contained  all 
things  both  in  substance  and  in  the  forms  of  their  various  species 
Augustine  differed  radically  from  many  of  the  commentators  of 
the  Middle  Ages,  who  held  that  the  substance  of  all  things  was 
created  at  once  but  that  they  were  distinguished  into  their  various 
species  in  the  course  of  the  six  days. 

Traces  of  this  logos  doctrine  are  likewise  to  be  found  in  the 
Greek  Fathers.  In  Basil,  it  occurs  in  the  notion  that  the  commands 
of  God  create  the  nature  of  things'  and  that  these  divine  commands 
remain  in  nature,  and,  for  example,  cause  the  earth  to  continue  to 
bear  fruits.^  Gregory  of  Nyssa  states  even  more  explicitly  the 
notion  that  God 's  commands  create  the  nature  of  things  and  deter- 
mine their  natural  modes  of  action  which  made  up  the  so-called 
necessary  causal  sequences  in  this  world  (cf.  Hex.  72C,  76B). 
This  nature  of  things,  made  by  God  and  distinguished  by  the  terms 
<To<^6<i  and  rexvLK6<;^  he  calls  logos. •^  Gregory  goes  much  farther 
in  this  matter  than  Basil ;  he  has  reference  not  simply  to  the  seminal 
power  implanted  in  the  earth,  sea,  and  animals,  but  to  the  begin- 
nings, causes,  and  powers  {a^op^iai,  alriai,  8waV«9,  IIe.x.  72B) 
which  God  lodged  in  the  world  in  the  beginning  and  from  which 

'  Cf.  Hex.  81 C  (where  it  is  stated  that  water  received  its  property  of  Oowing 
downhill  from  the  command  of  God  in  1:9):   6(ov  <f>wv^  <piatil)i  Ivti  wotrrriK^. 

'Ibid.  q6.\;  the  first  command  became  a  "law"  of  nature.  Cf.  149C  and 
164C  (the  language  in  the  latter  passage  is  Stoic:  ^X««  rb  xpScrayfui  oSi^  ^oa/for; 
cf.  Diog.  Laer.  VII,  156);   also  189C. 

i  Hex.  73.\fiF.:  dXXA  xPV  ixdcTt^  tCiv  6vtu)v  koj  \b-)iov  riva  (To<t>6*  re  xai  rtx'tKir 
iyKftffdai  TTiffTtvuv  .  .  .  .  tL  oCv  tlirtv  6  0f6t;  iirfiSi)  Xiryov  irapa<TTaTiK^  iffriy  rj  tomOtti 
(pwv^,  BfofTpeirQi  of/uat  vo^aofxtv  «(s  rdv  iymlfxtvov  t^%  Krlaewi  Xd-yot-  t6  ftrp-br  ira<f>^ povTft, 


l8  THE   HEXAEMERAL   LITERATURE 

were  developed  heaven,  earth,  ether,  air,  stars,  fire,  sea,  animals, 
and  plants.  Thus  Gregory  in  an  important  item  agreed  with  and 
anticipated  Augustine,  namely,  in  asserting  that  potentially  all 
things  existed  in  the  first  creation,  although  they  were  not  actually 
existent  (yyD).^  The  development  of  the  world  from  these  causes 
is  not  automatic,  but  is  the  working  of  the  logos  of  each  thing 
given  it  by  God  (72C);  and  Moses  shows  that  the  apparently 
natural  sequences  are  in  fact  due  to  God's  wisdom  and  direction 
by  representing  them  as  following  God's  commands  (73A,  76B). 
The  causes  or  logoi  in  Gregory's  thought  therefore  are  forms  which 
determine  both  the  constitution  of  things  and  the  action  and  repro- 
duction of  individuals.  He  seems  to  have  blended  in  this  doctrine 
the  Platonic  ideas,  the  Aristotelian  forms,  and  the  Stoic  seminal 
logoi. 

The  Stoics  sometimes  spoke  of  God  as  a  spirit  {irvevfia)  per- 
vading the  whole  material  universe  {Plac.  I,  7,  33),  an  idea  which 
seems  to  have  been  suggestive  to  the  earlier  Hexaemeral  writers 
in  commenting  upon  Gen.  1:2  and  2:7,  even  though  the  Stoic 
"spirit"  was  a  material  thing.  We  find  mention  of  this  Stoic 
doctrine.^  Theophilus  apparently  conceives  of  the  spirit  of  God 
in  Gen.  1:2  as  a  wind  or  breath,  but  ascribes  to  it  a  life-giving 
power  which  nourishes  the  waters  and  through  them  the  world  ;3 
if  God  should  withhold  it  the  world  would  perish.  God's  spirit 
encompasses  about  the  whole  world  (I,  5,  16).  There  is  perhaps 
a  suggestion  of  Stoicism  here,"  together  with  the  Old  Testament 
conception  of  the  wind  as  a  mysterious  and  powerful  agent  of  God.^ 
In  the  later  writers,  however,  the  "spirit  of  God"  in  Genesis  is 
generally  identified  with  the  third  member  of  the  Trinity. 

'  Cf.  H.  F.  Osbom,  From  the  Greeks  to  Darwin,  New  York,  1908,  71.  Gregory 
apparently  was  acquainted  with  Stoic  teaching;  cf.  De  horn.  op.  157 A,  where  he 
alludes  to  the  theory  that  the  heart  is  the  seat  of  intelligence. 

^  Theophilus  II,  4,  54;   Athenagoras  Suppl.  6,  32;    22,  108. 

3  11,  13,  94;    7,  22.     Philo's  conception,  De  op.  m.  9,  10,  is  similar. 

4  Even  clearer  in  Tatian  Or.  con.  Gr.,  who  distinguishes  between  two  varieties 
of  spirit;  the  greater  being  the  likeness  of  God,  originally  infused  in  man  but  lost 
through  sin,  the  inferior  being  a  creation  of  God  that  permeates  matter;  op.  cit. 
7,  12,  13,  20;  cf.  Athenagoras  Suppl.  24;  Aim6  Puech,  Recherches  sur  le  discours 
mix  Grecs  de  Tatien,  Paris,  1903,  65. 

5  W.  R.  Shoemaker  in  Jour.  Bib.  Lit.  XXIII,  13  ff. 


GREEK   PHILOSOPHY   AND   EARLY  GENESIS   COMMENTARIES       19 

Other  less  important  reminiscences  of  Stoicism  are  sometimes 
found  in  the  Hexaemera.  For  example,  Basil  uses  the  Stoic  argu- 
ment that  the  world  is  perishable  because  its  parts  are  destruc- 
tible.' Mention  is  also  made,  but  always  in  a  hostile  spirit,  of 
the  periodical  destruction  of  the  world  and  the  ultimate  return  of 
all  things  to  exactly  the  same  form  and  order. ^ 

It  was  of  course  inevitable  that  the  educated  Christians  of  the 
fourth  century  and  later  should  come  in  contact  with  neo-Platonism, 
and  it  is  not  strange  to  find  that  they  considered  certain  features  of 
that  philosophy  worthy  of  adoption.  In  the  Hexaemera  there  is 
evidence  that  the  neo-Platonists  inspired  the  tendency  of  the  Latin 
theologians  after  Augustine  to  declare  that  God  is  outside  of  time 
and  space,  or  even  beyond  attributes  of  any  kind.  The  first  clear 
reference  to  them  is  found  in  Basil's  objection  to  the  theory  which 
regards  God  as  the  involuntary  cause  of  the  universe,  as  a  body  is 
of  its  shadow  or  an  illuminating  body  of  its  brilliance.'  Augustine 
however  is  the  first  of  the  commentators  who  was  clearly  influenced 
by  neo-Platonism  in  an  important  way,  and  through  him  certain 
traces  of  neo-Platonism  came  into  the  Latin  Hexaemera  generally. 
The  De  divisione  naturae  of  Johannes  Scotus  Erigena,  which  was 
aft"ected  by  the  pseudo-Dionysius  Areopagita  as  well  as  by  Augus- 
tine, and  the  De  mundi  universitate  of  Bernard  of  Tours,  in  which 
the  world  soul,  as  was  remarked  above,  is  derived  from  the  Noys 
by  the  neo-Platonic  device  of  emanation,  are  the  most  important 
of  the  works  after  Augustine  which  show  the  influence  of  the 
neo-Platonists. 

Augustine's  acquaintance  with  neo-Platonism  is  an  admitted 
fact  and  has  been  the  subject  of  investigation. ••  He  himself 
declares  in  a  much-quoted  passage  {ConJ.  VII.  9)  that  through 
the  writings  of  the  Platonici — quite  certainly  meaning  the  neo- 

'  Hex.  9C;  cf.  Diog.  Laer.  VII,  141.      This  also  occurs  in  Lucretius  v,  235-46. 

'  Basil  73C;    Bernard  of  Tours  32,  105;   .\ugustine  DCD,  XII,  14. 

i  Hex.  17BC.  Plotinus  often  spoke  of  the  relations  between  the  One  and  the 
rest  of  the  universe  in  the  manner  which  Basil  rcpi:)rts;  cf.  Zcllcr  III,  2,  552  and  n.  2, 
557  and  n.  2. 

*G.  Loesche,  Dc  .{iigustino  Plolinizanle,  Jena,  1880;  L.  Grandgeorge,  Saint 
Augustin  et  la  neo-Plalonisme,  Paris,  1896;  Nourisson,  La  philosophie  de  St.  Auguslin, 
1866,  II,  102,  hi;   N.  Bouillct,  Les  enniades  de  Plotin,  II,  555. 


1 


20  THE  HEXAEMERAL  LITERATURE 

Platonists — he  first  came  to  understand  the  prooemium  of  John's 
gospel.'  In  his  exegesis  of  the  Biblical  passages  dealing  with 
creation  this  knowledge  of  neo-Platonism  shows  itself  especially 
in  two  ways,  in  his  conception  of  God,  and  in  his  allegorical  explana- 
tion of  the  days  of  creation  as  something  different  from  natural 
days.  The  first  point  has  been  noted  by  the  critics.^  God — 
Father,  Son,  and  Spirit — exists  without  beginning  or  end,  outside 
of  time  and  space^  in  an  eternity  in  which  there  is  no  temporal 
or  spatial  movement,  but  all  parts  of  it  are  ever  present.-*  With- 
out going  to  the  extreme  of  the  neo-Platonists  and  declaring  that 
God  is  wholly  without  attributes,  Augustine  shows  by  his  language 
that  he  borrowed  suggestions  from  them.  This  may  be  seen  from 
Lit.  IV,  i8,  34:  et  ideo,  dum  ipse  manet  in  se,  quidquid  ex  illo  est 
retorquet  ad  se,  ut  omnis  creatura  in  se  habeat  naturae  suae  terminum, 
quo  non  sit  quod  ipse  est,  in  illo  autem  quietis  locum  quo  seruet  quod 
ipsa  est.  Herein  he  employs  two  neo-Platonic  ideas,  the  fj^ovrj  or 
transcendent  rest  of  God  (manet  in  se)  and  the  iTna-rpocfyi]  of  all 
things  to  the  One  (retorquet  ad  se).^  Both  are  further  employed 
in  his  exegesis  of  Genesis — the  former  to  describe  the  seventh 
day's  rest  (Lit.  IV,  18-19),  which  Augustine  says  for  God  had  no 
beginning  or  end,  and  the  latter  in  his  discussion  of  the  six  days, 
as  will  presently  appear. 

In  accordance  with  this  definition  of  God's  nature,  Augustine 
denies  that  the  working  of  God  reported  in  the  Scriptures  is  either 
temporal  or  spatial;  all  his  thought  and  action  are  in  the  Word, 
including  the  commands  and  acts  of  creation.^    This  view,  which 

'  The  translations  of  Victorinus  were  the  medium  of  his  knowledge  of  the  neo- 
Platonists  (Conf.  VIII,  2). 

^  Grandgeorge,  chap.  II;  Loesche  31  ff.  Storz,  Die  Philosophie  des  hi.  Angus- 
tinus,  Freiburg,  1882,  182,  wrongly  judges  that  the  tendency  to  define  Deity  by 
negation  comes  from  the  polemic  against  Manichaeism. 

3  Lit.  VIII,  19:  dicimus  itaque  ....  deum  ....  nee  locorum  uel  finito  uel 
infinito  spatio  eontineri  nee  lemporum  uel  finito  uel  infinito  uolumine  uariari.  Storz 
183-84. 

^  Conf.  XI,  13,  16:  sed  praecedis  omnia  praeterita  celsitudine  semper  praesentis 
aeternitatis. 

5  The  similarity  of  terminology  may  be  seen  by  comparing  Plotinus  Enn.  I,  7,  i : 
Set  oCv  niveiv  aiirb  (sc.  t6  dya66v),  irpbs  avrb  8^  iiri(rTp4<p€Lv  Trdvra,  Sxrirep  kvkXov  wpbs 
Kivrpov,  0,(1)^  ov  iraffai  ypafifial  (v.l.  avrb  Diibner,  which  is  a  closer  parallel). 

^  Lib.  imp.  5,  19;   Lit.  I,  2,  6;   I,  5;   Cotif.  XI,  7,  9. 


GREEK   PHILOSOPHY   AND   EARLY   GENESIS   COMMENTARIES       21 

logically  follows  from  the  character  of  his  conception  of  Deity,  is 
stated  in  Lit.  1,  i8,  36:  scd  ante  omnia  meminerimus  ....  non 
temporalibus  quasi  animi  sui  aut  corporis  molihus  operari  deum, 
sicut  operatur  homo  uel  angelus,  sed  aeternis  atque  incommutahilihus 
el  stabilibus  rationibus  coaeterni  sibi  uerbi  sui  el  quodam,  ul  ita 
dixcrim,  fotu  pariler  coaeterni  sancli  spiritus  sui.  The  followers 
of  Augustine  in  the  middle  ages  often  cited  this  passage  with 
approval,'  and  they  accepted  his  doctrine  that  the  commands 
and  acts  of  Genesis  are  in  the  Word.^  It  is  in  these  ways  that  the 
influence  of  Augustine's  neo-Platonic  tendencies  was  most  felt 
in  later  times. 

To  justify  his  rejection  of  the  ordinary  belief  that  the  world 
was  created  in  six  natural  days  Augustine  devised  an  explanation 
of  the  days  mentioned  in  Gen.  i  by  an  allegorical  interpretation 
of  the  formulae  of  command  that  appear  in  the  Biblical  account.'' 
The  angels  are  the  "heaven"  of  Gen.  1:1,  and  by  the  command 
"Let  there  be  light"  they  are  brought  out  of  formlessness  to  an 
ordered  life.  The  making  of  the  light  is  their  turning  to  the  creator 
and  formation  out  of  formlessness.  This  state  of  illumination 
follows  darkness;  similarly,  "morning"  is  the  praise  of  God  by 
the  angelic  light  after  "evening,"  that  is,  the  recognition  of  its 
own  nature.  Each  successive  day  up  to  the  perfect  number  six* 
is  a  repetition  of  the  first;  the  first  evening  is  the  knowledge  which 
the  light  has  of  its  own  nature;  the  morning  beginning  the  second 
day  is  its  conversion  to  the  creator,  its  praise  of  him  and  perception 
in  the  Word  of  the  creation  that  is  next  to  follow,  in  this  case  the 
firmament.  This  implies  that  the  commands  couched  in  the  form 
Fiat  Jirmamentum  refer  to  the  making  in  the  Word  of  the  creation 

'  Vincent  of  Beauvais  Spec.  hist.  I,  8;  Peter  Lombard  II,  i,  2;  Bandinus  II,  i; 
Bruno  1568. 

» Following  Lit.  II,  6,  14,  they  declare  that  the  commands  reported  in  Genesis 
are  not  actually  spoken,  but  those  beginning  with  fiat  indicate  an  operation  in  and 
through  the  Word,  and  the  formulae  el  fecit  deiis  a.nd  factum  est  ita  refer  to  a  material 
creation  not  exceeding  the  bounds  set  in  the  Word.  Cf.  Beda  Hex.  ig.V,  Com.  igs-X; 
Strabus67B;  Hrabanus  4S0A;  .\ngelomus  116D;  RemissB;  Rupert  of  Deutz  io6D; 
Peter  Lombard  II,  13,  7;  Bandinus  II,  13;  Honorius  Elucidarium  1112C;  .\lbertus 
Magnus  IV,  73,  3;    Peter  Comestor  10576  (but  also  1058D). 

^  The  most  detailed  account  is  in  Lit.  IV,  22,  39;   cL  also  I,  3,  7  and  II,  S,  16. 

*  On  the  perfection  of  this  number,  see  infra  p.  29.  God  could  have  created  in 
one  day,  had  he  chosen,  but  on  account  of  the  perfection  of  six  tcK)k  that  number; 
Lit.  IV,  2,  2,  and  6. 


22  THE   HEXAEMERAL   LITERATURE 

mentioned;  the  formula  Et  sic  est  factum  refers  to  the  recognition 
of  this  creation  gained  by  the  angels  from  the  Word;  and  finally 
Et  fecit  Deus  regularly  means  that  the  "light"  perceives  the  crea- 
tion in  ipsa  7iatura.  Thereupon  evening,  the  angels'  knowledge 
of  the  creation  last  made,  comes  again,  to  be  succeeded  as  before 
by  morning,  their  conversion  to  the  creator,  praise  of  him,  and 
information  through  the  Word  of  the  creation  next  to  come. 

Without  doubt,  the  theory  outlined  above  from  Lit.  IV,  22,  39, 
which  is  unique  in  the  history  of  the  Hexaemera,  is  suggested  by 
the  neo-Platonic  systems  of  emanation,  although  to  Augustine 
creation  is  not  an  emanation,  but  a  real  creation  out  of  nothing. 
The  similarities  may  be  seen  from  a  comparison  of  Plotinus, 
Enn.  V,  2,  I,  with  the  above.  Plotinus  says:  ov  <yap  reXeiov  tw 
firjSiv  ^Tjrelv  firjSe  e'^^etv  fiTjSe  BelaOai,  olov  vrrepeppiir]  koI  to  virep- 
7rXrlpe<;  avTOv  7re7ro{r]K€v  aWo.  to  Se  yevofievov  et?  avro  eTreaTpd^rj 
Koi  iTrXrjpaOrj,  koL  e'^evero  TT/ao?  avro  BXeirov,  koI  vox/;  ovto^.  kuI  rj 
fiiv  7rpo<i  eKelvQ  crrdai^  avrov  to  ov  eTroi-qcrev,  77  8e  Trpo?  avTO  6ea  tov 
vovv.  In  this  account  of  the  emanation  of  the  Nous  there  are  two 
moments,  eTnaTpo^rj  and  crTdai.<;^  and  second,  ^ea;  the  first  gives  it 
existence  and  the  second  makes  it  vow.  In  Augustine'  we  can 
parallel  the  iTna-Tpocfyrj  with  conuersio  (in  the  forms  conuertere  and 
retorquere):  a-Tdaa  is  not  especially  mentioned,  but  6ea  is  bal- 
anced by  contemplatio ,  and  as  it  produces  vov<i^  so  contemplatio 
produces  formatio,  which  in  the  Augustinian  context  is  a  fair 
equivalent  of  vou^. 

This  unique  theory  of  the  meaning  of  the  six  days  was  adopted 
by  some  of  the  later  Latin  writers,  but  usually  only  in  part.  It 
was  too  speculative  and  difficult  to  appeal  to  the  majority,  who 
preferred  to  believe  that  the  six  days  were  really  periods  of  time. 
Erigena,  after  Augustine,  was  most  affected  by  neo-Platonism, 
which  caused  him  to  declare  that  God  is  beyond  all  attributes 
and  even  beyond  the  category  of  being. 

The  Epicureans  were  the  object  of  the  polemic  against  the 

'  Cf.  in  Lit.  IV,  22,  39:  ...  .  sicut  post  tenebras  facta  est  (sc.  lux)  ubi  intellegitur 
a  sua  quadam  informitate  ad  creatorem  conuersa  atque  formata;  ita  et  post  uesperam 
fiat  mane,  cum  post  cognitionem  suae  propriae  naturae,  qua  non  est  quod  deus,  refert 
se  ad  laudandam  lucem,  quod  ipse  deus  est,  cuius  contcmplatione  formatur.  Ibid. 
I,  2,  17:  quae  [sc.  lux]  nisi  ad  creatorem  illuminanda  conuerteretur,  fluitaret  informiter. 
Also  I,  4,  9;  5,  10;  III,  20,  31.  I  am  not  aware  that  this  parallelism  has  previously 
been  pointed  out. 


GREEK    PHILOSOPHY    AND    EARLY    GENESIS   COMMENTARIES       23 

notion  that  the  world  was  automatically  made  (cf.  Lucretius  v, 
187-94)  and  would  naturally  share  the  objections  made  against 
the  theory  that  matter  is  eternal.' 

Neo-Pythagoreanism  affected  the  Hexaemeral  writers  only  in 
the  transmission  of  the  idea  that  certain  virtues  dwell  in  the  several 
numbers — for  example,  that  six  is  perfect,  and  for  this  reason  the 
creative  work  was  performed  in  six  days,  or  that  two  is  evil,  because 
it  transcends  unity,  and  that,  therefore,  God  failed  to  call  the 
creations  of  the  second  day  good.^  This  sort  of  s>Tnbolical  inter- 
pretation of  numbers  was  much  employed  by  Philo,  and  through 
him  passed  into  the  Hexaemera.  In  the  Middle  Ages  there  was 
a  revival  of  the  use  of  topics  of  this  kind. 

Manichaeanism  gave  rise  to  the  polemic  of  Augustine  and  to 
certain  topics  of  the  Hexaemera,  for  example,  the  denial  that  the 
darkness  spoken  of  in  Gen.  i :  2  is  an  entity  and  the  principle  of  evil.^ 

It  has  thus  become  evident  that  the  commentators  upon  the 
creation  narrative  were  deeply  and  essentially  indebted  to  the 
Greek  philosophers.  To  the  old  Hebrew  account  they  added  the 
great  Platonic  doctrine  of  an  ideal  plan  underlying  the  foundation 
of  the  material  world.  Philo  and  the  neo-Platonists  confinned 
their  conviction  that  this  plan  was  in  the  divine  mind,  and  from 
the  teachings  of  the  Stoics  they  derived  assistance  in  their  explana- 
tion of  the  way  in  which  God,  according  to  the  Mosaic  account, 
worked  upon  chaotic  matter  to  produce  this  world  in  all  the  per- 
fection of  its  parts.  Had  Greek  philosophy  been  non-existent 
it  is  certain  that  the  commentaries  on  Genesis  would  have  borne 
an  entirely  different  character. 

'  Epicurus  is  expressly  mentioned  by  Helinandus  {Chron.  I,  ap.  Vincent  of 
Beauvais  Spec,  nat,  I,  18).  The  probability  that  .Aristotle  was  also  an  object  of  the 
polemics  mentioned  has  been  set  forth  above. 

'  Peter  Lombard  II,  14,  4;   Bandinus  II,  14. 

3  Philoponus  accused  Theodorus  of  Mopsucstia  of  saying  that  it  was  an  entity 
(84  IT.).  The  usual  explanation  was  that  the  darkness  was  simply  absence  of  light; 
Basil  40C;  Diodorus  of  Tarsus  1563 B;  Ambrose  138C;  Philoponus  69  fl. ;  Thcodo- 
retus  ap.  Philop.  85,  17;  .Anastasius  Sin.  859.\;  -Augustine  Matt.  I.  4,  Lib.  imp.  4, 
Cotif.  XII,  3;  Greg.  Nys.  IIix.  81D;  Severianus  I,  5;  pscudo-Euchcrius  Sqs.A; 
Beda  Cotti.  194B;  Hugo  of  St.  Victor  36.A;  Honorius  IJcx.  255B;  Theodorctus  Qu. 
iti  Geti.  i:  7;  Angelomus  115C;  Peter  Lombard  II,  12,  3;  Hugo  of  .Amiens  1254C; 
Gennadius  a/>.  MPG  LXXXV,  1628.A;  Eucherius  Instrtictiottrs  70,  9;  Bruno  14SB; 
Peter  Comestor  1056C.  Basil  37C  (cf.  .Ambrose  139D)  says  that  God  could  not 
create  such  an  evil  principle  because  things  cannot  arise  from  their  oppositcs  (for 
which  cf.  Dionysius  Areop.,  MPG  III,  716B). 


CHAPTER  II 
PHILO  JUDAEUS  AND  JEWISH  HEXAEMERAL  WRITINGS 

Although  it  is  not  the  purpose  of  this  study  to  investigate 
the  Hebrew  commentaries  on  the  Genesis  story,  there  are  certain 
Hebrew  writings  dealing  with  the  creation  which  from  their  con- 
nection with  the  Christian  Hexaemeral  tradition  must  receive 
notice.  Most  important  of  these  authors  is  Philo  Judaeus,  who 
is  in  fact  more  Greek  than  Hebrew;  the  others  are  the  authors  of 
some  of  the  non-canonical  scriptures,'  the  historian  Josephus,  and 
the  Hebrews  mentioned  by  Chalcidius. 

In  the  formulation  of  their  doctrine  of  the  Word,  the  Christian 
theologians  were  influenced  by  the  so-called  Wisdom  literature  of 
the  Hebrews,  as  well  as  by  Plato,  the  neo-Platonists,  the  Stoics, 
and  Philo.  No  exhaustive  study  of  the  Wisdom  Hterature  need  be 
undertaken  at  this  point;  a  few  of  its  leading  features,  however, 
may  be  pointed  out.  In  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  and  the  Wisdom 
of  Jesus  the  Son  of  Sirach,  Wisdom  is  sometimes  spoken  of  as  a 
creative  and  guiding  power  pervading  the  universe;^  but  this 
characterization  is  not  always  kept  up,  and  Wisdom  is  sometimes 
said  to  have  been  a  spectator  when  God  created  the  world.^  Here 
the  pervasion  of  the  world  by  Wisdom  is  analogous  to  the  pene- 
trative power  of  the  Stoic  logos,  and  in  fact  the  whole  series  of 
these  writings  is  probably  thoroughly  under  the  Greek  influence.'* 
The  passage  in  Prov.  8:22ff.,  which  in  the  Authorized  Version 
reads,  ''The  Lord  possessed  me  in  the  beginning  of  his  way,  before 
his  works  of  old;  I  was  set  up  from  everlasting,  from  the  beginning, 

'  Little  Genesis,  or  the  Book  of  Jubilees;  the  Book  of  the  Secrets  of  Enoch,  or 
Slavonic  Enoch;  the  Book  of  Enoch,  or  Ethiopic  Enoch;  the  Book  of  Adam  and 
Eve  (which  is  included  here  although  it  is  not  of  Hebrew  origin). 

'  Cf.  Wisd.  of  Sol.  7:242.:  SiTj/cet  di  Kal  x^P^^  ^"^  vavruv  dia  ttjv  KadapoTrjTa 
.  .  ,  .  /xia  di  oZaa.  Trdvra  d^jvarai  Kal  n^vovcra  iv  aijrri  to.  vdvra  /catc/fet.  Sirac.  24:5: 
yvpov  oipavov  iKiKKuffo.  ft.bvri.  On  the  whole  subject  see  Heinze,  Lehre  vom  Logos, 
193  ff. 

3  Heinze  op.  cit.,  197  and  n.  6.  ^  Zeller  IH,  2,  293. 

24 


PHILO   JUDAEUS    AND   JEWISH   HEXAEMERAL    WRITINGS  2$ 

or  ever  the  earth  was,"  is  sometimes  cited  by  the  Hexaemeral 
writers.' 

The  non-canonical  Hebrew  books  belong,  in  a  sense,  to  the 
Hexaemeral  tradition,  as  commentaries  upon  the  Genesis  narra- 
tive, because  their  authors  in  retelling  the  creation  story  attempted 
to  emphasize  points  not  mentioned  in  Genesis  or  treated  briefly 
there.  The  motive  prompting  such  commentary  was  sometimes 
the  desire  to  reassert  the  old  Hebrew  faith  in  the  face  of  encroach- 
ing Hellenism,  and  sometimes  the  desire  to  interpret  the  old 
beliefs  in  the  Hellenic  manner,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Wisdom  litera- 
ture. As  examples  of  the  former  may  be  cited  the  tendency  of 
Jubilees  and  other  writings  to  fix  very  definitely  the  time  of  the 
biblical  events,  and  especially  the  importation  of  angels  into  the 
narrative,  although  Genesis  does  not  mention  them.  Angels  are 
frequently  mentioned  in  other  parts  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
according  to  Job  38:7  in  the  LXX  they  are  said  to  have  been 
witnesses  of  creation.  In  order  to  reconcile  the  apparent  incon- 
sistencies, and  to  answer  the  question  when  the  angels  were  created, 
Jub.  2 : 2  states  that  they  were  made  on  the  first  day.'  and  in  some 
of  the  Byzantine  chronicles  this  passage  of  Jubilees  is  cited.^ 

The  angelology  of  Jubilees  and  the  other  works  of  this  class 
is  elaborate.  The  classes  of  angels  in  Jubilees  are  defined  as  the 
angels  of  the  presence,  the  angels  of  sanctification,  the  guardian 
angels  of  nations  and  individuals,"*  and  the  inferior  angels  that 
supervise  the  rain,  snow,  clouds,  hail,  and  other  natural  phenomena, 
and  in  Slavonic  Enoch  (chaps.  4-6)  angels  are  said  to  be  in  charge 
of  the  luminaries  as  well.  This,  or  Hebrew  speculation  of  which 
this  is  a  part,  may  be  a  source  of  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  Cosmas 

'  Chalcidius  307,  8;   Augustine  Couf.  VII,  21,  Lit.  V,  19;   Ambrose  128A,  i2qD. 

'  According  to  Slav.  Enoch  29: 1,  they  were  one  of  the  works  of  the  second  day, 
but  Charles  conjectures  in  his  note  ad  loc.  that  the  MS  is  at  fault.  The  statement  of 
Jubilees  that  after  their  creation  the  angels  praised  Ciod  is  doubtless  added  to  bring 
the  account  into  agreement  with  Job;  Cosmas  has  a  similar  (xissage  wherein  he  quotes 
Job.  Augustine's  doctrine  of  the  "conversion"  of  the  angels  has  nothing  to  do  with 
Jubilees. 

1  Theodosius  Mel.  {et  al.;  see  index)  2,  2;  Zonaras  ij,  3;  Cctlrenus  9,  13. 

<  The  idea  is  found  in  the  X.T.;  cf.  Malt.  18:  lo.  .\cts  12:15;  it  is  common  in 
the  He.xaemera. 


26  THE  HEXAEMERAL  LITERATURE 

and  Theodorus  of  Mopsuestia  {infra,  p.  62).  Jubilees  also  says 
definitely  that  the  Genesis  story  was  revealed  to  Moses  by  an 
angel  of  the  presence  (2:1),  in  keeping  with  the  statements  in  the 
other  books  of  the  Old  Testament  that  inspiration  from  God  came 
through  the  angels;'  but  the  statements  in  the  Hexaemera  (cf. 
Anastasius,  861D,  876C)  that  Moses  talked  with  an  angel  or  was 
inspired  by  God  do  not  come  from  this  source. 

Without  describing  the  confused  and  complicated  cosmology 
of  this  class  of  writings,  a  few  of  the  more  important  ideas  derived 
from  them  may  briefly  be  enumerated:  i.  It  is  characteristic  of 
Jubilees  to  omit  the  formulas  of  command  used  in  Genesis  and 
merely  to  state  the  number  of  works  done  on  each  of  the  crea- 
tive days.  At  the  end  of  the  narrative,  the  sum  of  all  the 
works  is  given  as  twenty- two,  the  number  of  the  patriarchs  from 
Adam  to  Jacob. ^ 

2.  Jubilees  enumerates  Paradise  among  the  works  of  the  third 
day.^ 

3.  They  contain  detailed  accounts  of  the  fall  of  Lucifer  and 
his  followers,  of  the  same  type  as  those  often  found  in  the 
Hexaemera.  Slav.  Enoch  7:3  says  "these  angels  apostatized  from 
the  Lord"  and  "took  counsel  of  their  own  will,"  and  in  29:4 
that  Satan  wished  to  make  his  throne  higher  and  to  be  equal 
with  God. 

4.  In  Slav.  Enoch  30:8  there  is  a  comparison  of  man  with  the 
world;  Adam's  flesh  is  made  from  the  earth,  blood  from  the  dew, 
eyes  from  the  sun,  bones  from  the  stones,  thoughts  from  the  swift- 
ness of  the  angels  and  of  the  clouds,  veins  and  hair  from  the  grass, 
and  spirit  from  God 's  spirit  and  the  wind.  This  is  to  be  compared 
to  the  microcosmus  topic;    and  Philo's  comparison   {Leg.  All., 

'  See  R.  H.  Charles  on  Jub.  1:27. 

'Jub.  2:15;  reminiscences  in  Epiphan.  De  mens,  et  potid.,  XXII;  Syncellus 
5,  14-17;  Cedrenus  9,  6-13;  Anastasius  940;  Isidorus  Etym.  XVI,  26,  10  (from 
Epiphanius).  From  the  form  of  these  references  Charles  infers  that  the  original 
text  of  Jubilees  also  compared  the  number  of  the  works  to  the  ntimber  of  the  books 
in  the  O.T.  In  this  connection  cf.  Eucherius  Formulae  (p.  60,  ed.  Wotke) :  xxii.  ad 
sacramenkim  dininorum  uoliiminum  secundum  I'Heras  Hehraeorum. 

3  Cf.  Slav.  Enoch  30:1;  Book  of  Adam  and  Eve  1:1;  Syncellus  5,  7;  Cedrenus 
8,  5-7- 


PHILO   JUDAEUS   AND   JEWISH    HEXAEMERAL   WRITINGS  2^ 

95,  13  C-W)  of  man's  bones  to  the  stones  and  his  nails  and  hair  to 
the  plants  is  perhaps  a  reminiscence.' 

5.  Slav.  Enoch  30:13  reads,  "And  I  gave  him  a  name  from 
the  four  substances,  the  East,  the  West,  the  North,  and  the  South. " 
This,  which  is  a  proof  that  Slavonic  Enoch  was  originally  written 
in  Greek  (cf.  Charles's  note),  refers  to  the  acrostic  'Az/otoXt;, 
Avo-t9,''Ap«T09,  'Mea-Tjfi^pia,  and  is  several  times  mentioned  in  the 
Hexaemera.'' 

6.  In  Jub.  4:30,  when  Adam  dies,  lacking  seventy  of  a  thousand 
years  of  age,  it  is  stated  that  he  has  fulfilled  the  prophecy,  "On 
the  day  that  ye  eat  thereof  ye  will  die"  (Gen.  2:17),  for  one  thou- 
sand years  is  one  day  "in  the  testimony  of  the  heavens."  This 
is  an  instance  of  the  notion  that  the  world  would  exist  for  six 
thousand  years  after  its  creation  until  the  judgment  day,  followed 
by  a  millennium  of  rest.  Examples  of  similar  ideas  are  seen  in 
Slav.  Enoch  30:  i,  "Let  the  eighth  be  the  first  after  my  work,  and 
let  the  days  be  after  the  fashion  of  seven  thousand"  (see  Charles's 
note),  and  in  the  Book  of  Adam  and  Eve  1:3.  Adam  is  informed 
after  his  fall  that  the  redeemer  of  him  and  his  seed  will  come  in 
live  and  one-half  days,  that  is,  live  thousand,  live  hundred  years. 
The  idea  of  the  world  week  is  common  in  Christian  writings^  and 
the  allied  and  derived  idea  of  the  seven  ages  of  the  world  is  a  topic 
of  the  later  Hexaemera  (infra  p.  72). 

The  treatise  De  opificio  miindi  of  Philo  Judaeus  is  the  first 
extant  work  in  Greek  dealing  with  the  interpretation  of  the  creation 
story  in  Genesis.  Like  the  other  Jewish  theologians  of  Alexandria, 
of  whom  we  know  but  little,  Philo  was  an  eclectic  in  his  philosophy. 
He  drew  mainly  upon  Plato,  Platonizing  nco-Pythagoreans.  and 
the  Stoics,  but  throughout  he  held  steadfast  belief  in  the  authority 
of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.^     His  philosophical  system  is  a  combina- 

•  Cf.  also  Slav.  Enoch  30:9  and  Philo  De  op.  mufid.,  41,  14-16,  in  each  of  which 
seven  natures  of  man  are  enumerated.  Raleigh  I,  2,  5  has  an  elaborate  comparison 
of  this  t>-pe. 

'Beda  Com.  2i6C;  Orac.  Sib.  Ill,  24-25;  II,  195;  VIII,  321;  XI.  3;  Glyca 
160.^8;   Severianus  V,  3;  Honorius  Dc  imag.  tntind.  I,  S6;  EJtuid.  11 17.\. 

3  Iren.  Conlr.  hacr.  V,  28,  3;  Clem.  .Alex.  Strom.  IV,  25;  Cedrcnus  9;  Honorius 
Hex.  259  BC;  Origen  according  to  Methodius  ap.  Phot.  cod.  235;  Suidas,  J.t.  Ti-ppij"'*. 
Ps.  90:4  was  a  source  of  the  same  ideas. 

^Zellerlll,  2,  385  ff. 


28  THE  HEXAEMERAL  LITERATURE 

tion  of  the  Scriptures  and  Greek  philosophy  through  the  medium 
of  allegorical  interpretation.  In  the  De  opificio  mundi  he  shows 
his  thorough  familiarity  with  Plato  by  his  citations  of  the  dialogues, 
especially  the  Timaeus;  from  the  neo-Pythagoreans  he  derives 
his  tendency  to  use  numbers  in  a  mystical  and  symbolical  manner. 
The  utter  materialism  of  the  Stoics  was,  of  course,  foreign  to  Philo, 
but  their  influence  is  seen  in  his  doctrine  of  the  Powers  of  God, 
which  are  apparently  a  fusion  of  the  Stoic  seminal  logoi,  the  Platonic 
ideas,  and  the  Jewish  angels.^  As  the  discussion  will  show,  his 
influence  upon  the  Christian  Hexaemera  was  great. 

After  the  prooemium  of  the  De  opificio  mundi,  Philo  argues 
for  the  existence  of  an  active  principle,  God,  over  against  the 
passive  principle,  matter.^  Here  he  censures  those  who  "admire 
the  cosmos  more  than  its  maker"  (2,  12)  and  assert  that  it  was 
automatically  made — such  thinkers,  that  is,  as  the  Epicureans 
and  perhaps  Aristotle  {supra,  p.  14).  The  active  principle  is 
the  purest  Mind,  transcending  virtue,  wisdom,  goodness,  and 
beauty  ;3  the  passive  is  unmoved  by  itself  but  is  ordered  by  God 
into  the  cosmos.  His  arguments  are  that  there  is  forethought  in 
the  administration  of  the  universe  (3,  5),  and  that  God  could  have 
no  care  for  that  which  he  had  not  himself  made.^  The  world 
without  a  governing  God  is  like  a  state  where  anarchy  reigns 
(3,  11).  For  this  reason  Moses  distinguished  between  the  visible, 
sensible  world,  subject  to  generation  and  decay,  and  the  uncreated, 
unseen,  eternal,  and  intelligible  God.^ 

Philo  then  turns  to  discuss  the  meaning  of  the  six  days  of 
creation  (4,  iff.),  and  states  that  God  had  no  need  of  time,  since 
he  could  have  made  everything  at  once,  but  created  the  world  in 

'  Ibid.  408-9. 

'  2,  16  ff.  The  contrast  is  fundamental  with  the  Stoics;  supra,  p.  14.  The 
Stoic  active  principle,  however,  was  material. 

3  2,  20;   cf.  Plato  Rep.  S09B. 

■»3,  6;  cf.  Raleigh's  Preface,  xl,  "For  what  father  forsaketh  the  child  which  he 
hath  begotten?"  The  thought  that  God  is  good  and  cares  for  the  world  underlies 
the  whole  Timaeus;  cf.  29E,  30A. 

s  3,  13,  using  the  terminology  of  Tim.  27D,  28A  etc. 


PHILO   JUDAEUS   AND   JEWISH   HEXAEMERAL   WRITINGS  29 

six  days  because  there  was  need  of  order  in  created  things.'  Else- 
where (Leg.  All.  61,  iiff.)  he  says  that  the  world  was  not  created 
in  time  at  all.  but  in  the  number  sLx.  because  time,  made  up  of  the 
passage  of  days  and  nights  and  therefore  dependent  upon  the 
movement  of  the  sun.  could  not  have  existed  before  the  creation 
of  the  universe  {su^ra,  p.  7).  The  world  was  made  in  the  number 
six  because  of  the  perfection  of  that  number.  By  the  laws  of 
nature  it  is  best  fitted  to  generate  {De  op.  miind.  4,  4tT.)  because 
it  is  the  sum  of  its  factors — one;  the  dyad,  the  first  even  or  female 
number;  and  the  triad,  the  first  odd  or  male  number.  Since  the 
universe  was  to  embrace  all  the  forms  of  existence  coming  from 
this  number,  it  had  to  be  molded  after  the  number  itself.  This 
s}Tnbolical  manipulation  of  the  number  sLx  is  an  example  of  the 
neo-Pythagoreanism  in  Philo^  and  is  the  source  of  a  long  line  of 
similar  passages  in  the  Hexaemera.^ 

Philo  explains  the  creation  of  the  first  day  as  that  of  the  intelli- 
gible world,  the  vorjT6<;  KocrfMot*  Like  Plato,  he  assumes  that 
God  had  some  pattern  in  creating  the  world,^  for  every  sensible 
thing  has  an  ideal  pattern  and  a  fair  thing  has  a  fair  pattern  (5,  i  fT.). 
Unlike  Plato,  he  says  definitely  that  God  made  the  intelligible 
world.     Another  difference  between  Plato  and  Philo  is  that  the 

'  Ambrose  (Ep.  44.  2,  cited  by  Cohn-Wendland,  PhU.  Alex.  Op.  I,  Ixxxx)  used 
this  passage.  The  question  why  God  took  six  days  became  a  topic  in  the  Hexaemera, 
probably  suggested  by  the  discussion  of  Philo. 

'  Zeller  III,  2,  439,  and  n.  6. 

J  Philo{X)nus  304,  18  ff.,  much  like  Philo,  has  the  two  ideas  that  the  number  six 
is  perfect  and  that  the  world  was  to  be  perfect  and  was  therefore  to  be  created  in  the 
perfect  number.  The  perfection  of  six  was  a  commonplace  in  the  Latin  mediaeval 
writings.  Cf.  Greg.  Nyss.  Horn,  in  uerb.  Fac.  Horn.  285C;  Procopius  140B;  .Augus- 
tine Lit.  IV,  2,  6;  Isidorus  Lib.  numerorum  184C;  pseudo-Eucherius  902.\;  Beda 
//fx.  33C,  Com.  202C;  Hrabanus463D;  .Angelomus  i25.\;  Hildebert  1216I);  Neckam 
11,173;  Erigena  III,  11;  IV.  9;  Vincent  of  Beauvais5/>tt-. /r/5/.  I.  iS;  Peter  Comestor 
10640.  Honorius  (Hex.  263.A)  says  that  Plato  had  the  perfection  of  the  number  six 
in  mind  in  the  opening  phrases  of  the  Timaeus;  and  William  of  Conches  in  the  com- 
mentary on  the  Timaeus  ascribed  to  him  makes  the  same  statement. 

*  4,  15-21;  44, 19.    The  term  docs  not  occur  in  Plato.    Cf.  Shorey,  A.  J. P.,  X,  50 

s  This  assumption  (cf.  Tim.  28A)  is  like  that  which  Plato  makes  in  explaining 
the  theory  of  ideas  in  Rep.  596AB;  cf.  also  Crat.  389C.  The  human  artisan  looks  to 
a  model  in  his  creation;  on  the  same  analogy  so  does  the  Demiurge. 


30  THE  HEXAEMERAL  LITERATURE 

former's  pattern  is  the  idea  of  living  thing,  while  the  ideas  of 
all  things,  both  animate  and  inanimate,  are  included  in  the  in- 
telligible world  of  Philo.^  Philo's  language  in  describing  the  intelli- 
gible world  is  full  of  reminiscences  of  the  Timaeus.'^  He  illustrates 
his  meaning  by  a  simile  taken  from  the  building  of  a  city  (5,  lyff.) 
in  which  God  corresponds  to  the  architect  and  his  reason  or  logos 
is  the  intelligible  world  (6,  7ff.)-  The  identity  of  the  two  is 
explicitly  stated  again  in  7,  i^]^? 

Philo  (6,  13)  accepts  the  reason  given  by  Plato  {Tim.  29E) 
why  God  created  the  world — namely,  because  of  his  goodness 
and  his  desire  that  all  creation  should  share  therein.  He  sets  a 
precedent  here  that  is  followed  by  many  Hexaemeral  writers. 
God's  work,  then,  is  bringing  order  out  of  chaotic  matter,-*  which 
according  to  Philo  is  coexistent  with  God  and  not  created  by  him; 
but  he  cannot  benefit  the  world  to  the  full  extent  of  his  power,  for 
matter  by  its  very  nature  cannot  receive  all  that  God  would  confer 
upon  it.s  God's  power  is  thus  metaphysically  limited.  The 
underlying  thought  is  present  in  those  passages  of  Plato  where 
matter  is  represented  as  resisting  the  efforts  of  the  Demiurge. 

The  "beginning"  (Gen.  i :  i)  is  interpreted  as  being  not  accord- 
ing to  time  but  number,  i.e.,  ''first"  (8,  5  ff.),  for  time  was  not 
existent  before  the  creation  of  the  world.  The  first  five  verses  of 
Genesis  are  taken  to  refer  to  the  ideal  world.     The  first  creation 

'  See  e.g.  9,  4  and  Shorey  Unity  of  Plato's  Thought  37,  n.  256. 

'  Cf.  De  op.  nttind.  4,  21  S.,  with  Tim.  28A,  29A,  30D,  34C. 

3  Philo's  logos  is  identified  with  the  highest  idea  (Heinze  op.  cit.  223)  and,  unlike 
Plato,  Philo  held  that  the  ideas  are  the  product  of  God's  thought  (Heinze  221).  He 
did  not,  however,  identify  the  logos  with  God;  cf.  Qtiis.  rer.  din.  her.  42,  p.  501  Mangey, 
where  it  is  stated  that  the  logos  is  neither  ungenerated  like  God  nor  generated  like 
ourselves.  See  also  the  citations  in  Ritter  and  Preller,  Hist.  Phil.  Gr.  6ioa.  This 
is  due  to  the  tendency  of  mj'stical  thought  to  set  up  a  series  of  mediations.  See 
Zeller  HI,  2,  419  and  nn.  1-2,  420  and  n.  5,  421  and  nn.  1-3. 

*  Cf.  6,  18  ff.  with  Tim.  30A3  ff.,  69B.  In  saying  (3,  16  ff.)  that  there  must  be 
an  active  and  a  passive  principle,  Philo  leaves  open  the  supposition  that  the  former 
does  not  create  the  latter.  He  never  states  that  matter  is  generated,  but  often  that 
the  cosmos  is  generated,  meaning,  therefore,  that  the  arrangement  of  the  universe  is 
not  a  matter  of  chance.  The  Christian  writers  insisted  that  God  created  matter  out 
of  nothing.     On  Philo 's  position  cf .  Baumker,  Problem  der  Materie  384. 

5  Cf.  De  op.  mund.  7,  5  ff.,  with  Tim.  37D,  48A,  69B,  86D,  Politicus  269D,  Theae- 
teius  176A;  supra,  p.  6. 


PHILO   JUDAEUS   AND   JEWISH   HEXAEMERAL    WRITINGS  3 1 

(g,  4  ff.)  consisted  of  ovpavov  aaoi^iaTov  Kal  yrju  aoparov  Koi  aepot 
ISe'av  Kal  kcvov,  so  that  the  darkness  (Gen.  1:2)  and  the  deep 
(ibid.)  are  respectively  the  ideas  of  air  and  space.  Besides  these 
there  are  the  ideas  of  water  (9.  7  v8aTo<;  aacofxaTov  ovaiav)  and  of 
wind  or  breath  {irvevp.a,  which  is  called  God's  in  Gen.  i  :2  becau.se 
it  is  life-giving)  and  intelligible  light  in  the  form  of  patterns  of  the 
sun  and  stars.  This  light  is  spoken  of  as  the  image  of  the  divine 
logos  (9,  15),  but  Philo  did  not  identify  it,  as  Augustine  did,  with 
the  angels.  The  separation  of  the  intelligible  light  and  darkness 
constitutes  the  first  evening  and  morning  (10,  8  ff.);  it  is  accom- 
plished by  means  of  opoL  which  are  themselves  ideal — l^eai  Kal 
fierpa  Kal  tvttoi  Kal  a(^pa'yLhe^  et?  'yeveatv  aWwv  a<T(0p,ara  acofjidTajv 
(10,  20),  that  is,  types  after  which  were  fashioned  the  variati(^ns 
of  day  and  night  in  the  material  world.  In  this  manner  Philo 
disposes  of  a  question  which  troubled  the  later  commentators — 
how  to  interpret  the  divisions  of  time  before  the  creation  of  the 
luminaries. 

After  this  the  material  world  was  made,  beginning  with  the 
firmament,  which  was  so  called  because  it  was  somatic,  that  is,  of 
three  dimensions,  as  opposed  to  the  intelligible  (11,  7  ff.).  Philo 
then  did  not  conceive  of  the  heaven  as  a  solid  roof,  but  rather 
agrees  substantially  with  Augustine  and  Basil.  He  might  well 
at  this  place  have  said  that  matter  was  created  out  of  nothing, 
had  he  so  believed,  but  from  his  language  in  11,  5  ff.  it  is  to  be 
inferred  that  his  views  were  like  those  of  Plato. 

At  first,  the  two  elements  water  and  earth  were  mingled  in  a 
formless  mixture  (11,  17  ff.),  but  at  God's  command  the  salt  water 
that  was  useless  for  nourishing  herbage  was  brought  together  and 
the  dry  land  formed,  while  the  sweet  water,  pouring  forth  from 
underground  veins  into  rivers,'  was  left  in  the  earth  and  serves  to 
bind  it  together  and  prevent  its  dissolution. 

On  the  third  day  the  herbs  and  trees  were  created  full-grown 
(12.  20  ff.).  The  fourth  day  witnessed  the  creation  of  the  lumina- 
ries.    Philo  is  the  first  to  say  that  these  were  created  after  the 

■  For  this  idea  in  the  Hcxaemera  cf.  Basil  92C;  Ambrose  i65.\;  pscudo-EusUthius 
713B;  Glyca  53C;  Beda  Ilex.  20C;  Honorius  Hex.  256C  and  De.  Im.  Mund.  I,  5; 
Hugo  of  St.  Victor  34B;  Theodorctus  Qu.  in  Gen.  I,  i  J.  The  notion  is  a  conunon  one; 
cf.  Plato  Phaedo  iiiD,  Lucretius  v,  812  Cf. 


32  THE  HEXAEMERAL  LITERATURE 

earth  had  borne  its  herbage  in  order  that  men  might  not  ascribe 
this  to  the  power  of  the  sun  but  to  God.  This  became  a  topic  of 
the  Hexaemera.'  In  connection  with  this  he  also  explains  the 
perfections  of  the  number  four  (15,  8  ff.)-  The  stars  are  animated 
(25,  3)  and  incapable  of  evil.*  The  sun  outshines  all  the  other 
luminaries — a  topic  mentioned  often  in  the  Hexaemera.  He 
briefly  condemns  astrology,  saying  that  the  stars  as  signs  have 
only  to  do  with  the  weather,  the  seasons,  and  the  Uke  (18,  156*., 
19,  14  £f.) — a  topic  upon  which  the  Hexaemera  give  lengthy 
polemics. 

In  the  commentary  on  the  creations  of  the  fifth  day,  the  number 
five,  like  four,  six,  and  seven,  is  given  an  allegorical  significance 
(20,  loff.).  The  fish  were  given  homes  in  various  kinds  of  water 
according  to  their  species,  not  by  chance  but  by  providence.^ 

Turning  to  the  creation  of  man  in  the  image  of  God,  Philo,  like 
many  Hexaemeral  writers  after  him,  states  that  the  image  is  no 
external  one  but  is  found  in  the  mind  (23,  6)."     Of  the  two  accounts 

»  14,  5S.;  cf.  Theophilus  II,  15,  100;  Basil  88C,  120C;  Chrysostom  VI,  4; 
Severianus  III,  2;  Ambrose  166C,  163B,  188B,  189A;  Philoponus  160,  6;  Glyca  84C. 

'This  is  Platonic;  Tim.  38E,  40B-D.  Other  Hexaemeral  writers  deny  it: 
Neckam  I,  9;  Augustine  Lit.  II,  18,  and  Abelard  75  2  B  are  non-committal.  Cf.  also 
Philoponus  231,  7  ff.;  Du  Bartas,  94  in  Sylvester's  translation.  Milton,  P.L.  X,  648  5., 
represents  them  as  moved  by  angels;  see  also  infra,  p.  62.  In  treating  of  the  lumina- 
ries and  light,  Philo  employs  two  other  Platonic  topics.  He  saj's  that  the  mind  is  the 
eye  of  the  soul,  because  the  one  sees  inteUigible  and  the  other  material  things;  cf.  17, 
15  flf.,  and  Rep.  508D.  Like  Plato,  too,  he  says  that  men  come  by  means  of  the  sense 
of  sight  and  the  contemplation  of  the  heavens  to  the  study  of  the  universe  and  to 
philosophy;   17,  i4ff.,  and  Tim.  47A  ff. 

3  This  topic  was  later  used  to  show  that  the  dumb  creatures  do  not  transgress 
the  divine  law  but  keep  within  their  prescribed  bounds;  cf.  Basil  156A,  which  was 
copied  by  others.  Cf.  20,  20  ff.,  and  Basil  149A,  copied  by  pseudo-Eustathius  724B. 
Philo  also  introduces  the  Hexaemeral  topic  that  the  fish  and  the  birds  may  well  have 
a  common  origin  in  the  water  because  both  swim,  the  fish  in  the  water,  the  birds  in 
the  air  (21,  5  ff.).  Cf.  Basil  169A;  Ambrose  225C;  Philoponus  212;  Augustine 
Lit.  Ill,  6;  Lib.  imp.  15;  pseudo-Eustathius  728C;  Glyca  96D;  Theodosius  Meht. 
3,  19  ff.  The  origin  of  the  topic  seems  to  be  Plato  Soph.  220B.  Philo  follows  Plato 
in  ascribing  different  grades  of  soul  to  fish,  beasts,  and  man;  cf.  21,  16  and  21  with 
Tim.  92B. 

^  Cf.  Origen  Horn,  in  Gen.  155D;  Augustine  Man.  I,  17;  Lib.  imp.  16;  Lit.  Ill, 
20;  pseudo-Eucherius  900C,  904C;  Eucherius  Instructiones  68,  24  (Wotke);  Beda 
Com.  200D,  Hex.  29C;   Honorius  Hex.  258C;   Angelomus  122A;    Remi  57A;   Peter 


PHILO  JUDAEUS   AND  JEWISH   HEXAEMERAL   WRITINGS  33 

in  Genesis,  the  first  describes  the  making  of  ''an  idea,  class,  or 
type,  intelligible,  incorporeal,  neither  male  nor  female,  naturally 
immortal,"  and  the  making  of  the  body  of  man  is  described  in 
Gen.  2:7  (46,  i8fT.).  The  phrase  "Let  us  make"  is  used  because 
God  calls  upon  his  powers  to  assist  him  (24,  21  flf.).  God  can  make 
only  such  beings  as  the  stars,  which  are  animated  and  capable 
only  of  good,  and  the  irrational  animals,  which  are  dhid^opa 
(the  Stoic  term) ;  but  of  man,  who  is  capable  of  both  good  and  evil, 
he  can  make  only  the  good  portions,  for  he  cannot  be  the  author 
of  evil  {supra,  p.  5).  The  reasons  why  man  was  made  last  are, 
that,  since  he  was  highest  gifted  with  mind,  the  world  had  to  be 
prepared  for  him  (26,  iff.)' 5  appearing  thus  after  all  was  ready, 
the  world  all  but  cried  out  to  him  that  if  he  imitated  his  creator 
he  would  live  happily  without  toil  (27,  7ff".);  in  the  scheme  of 
creation,  the  best  of  immortal  things,  heaven,  was  first  made,  and 
the  best  of  mortal  things,  man,  last  (28,  18  fif.);  and  finally,  man's 
sudden  appearance  would  surprise  and  cow  the  beasts,  over  which 
he  exercises  dominion,  though  physically  the  weaker  (29,  4ff.). 

From  the  allegorical  treatment  of  the  number  seven  the  later 
writers  took  certain  topics.^ 

The  first  man,  because  he  was  made  out  of  new  and  pure 
materials  (47,  16  ff.)  and  because  God  himself  made  him  with 
direct  reference  to  the  archetype,  the  logos  (49,  7),  was  excellent 
above  all  other  men;  in  succeeding  generations  the  likeness  to  the 
model  fades.  God  led  the  animals  before  Adam  to  receive  their 
names — not  because  he  himself  was  in  perplexity,  but  to  test  his 
powers  as  a  teacher  tests  a  pupil  (52,  8  flf.).     Adam  then  assigned 

Lombard  II,  i6,  4;  Bandinus  II,  16;  Hildcbert  1215C;  Alcimus  Avitus;  Philoponus 
239,  i7fl.;  Dxogo  De  creat.  d  rcdcmpl.  prim,  horn.;  .\rnold  of  Chartres  1534A;  Greg. 
Nyss.,  Horn,  in  uerb.  Fac.  Horn.  264.^;  Procopius  i20.\;  Vincent  of  Bcauvais  Spec, 
hist.  I,  34;   Bruno  158B;   Peter  Comestor  1063C. 

'  The  comparison  of  the  late  creation  of  man  to  the  inviting  of  a  banqueter  to  a 
feast  already  prepared  (26,  9  ff.)  is  found  also  in  Ambrose,  Ep.  43,  3;  Greg.  Nyss. 
De  horn.  op.  133B;  DuBartas,  156  in  Sylvester's  translation. 

^  It  is  shown  that  seven  is  the  largest  prime  number  in  the  decad  not  a  factor  of 
other  numbers  therein;  cf.  Isidorus  Lib.  numcrorum  i86.\;  Philoponus  306,  7.  He 
also  enumerates  various  groups  of  sevens,  including  the  seven  ages  of  man  (cf.  .\mbrose 
Ep.  44,  10-11,  cited  by  Cohn-Wendland). 


34  THE  HEXAEMERAL  LITERATURE 

names  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  the  vofioeerrj^:  of 
Plato's  Cratylus,  for  he  devised  ra^  deaei'i  mt'  dvoiKeiow  mt 
dvaptioaTOVt  dXk'  ifi(f)aivov(ra^  ev  fidXa  Ta«?  ratv  vTroKeifievcov 
ISioTTjTa';  .  .  .  .  ev  /xdXa  a-TOxat6fi€vo<i  rcbv  StjXovfievcov  w?  dfia 
XeyOrjvai  re  /cat  voT]6i]vai  Tuf  (^vaei'i  avTtav  (52,  13 ff.;  cf.  Crat. 
389D). 

Evil  had  its  origin  in  pleasure'  and  did  not  come  to  man  until 
after  the  advent  of  woman,  when  he  had  ceased  to  be  one,  like 
God  and  the  universe  (52,  22  ff.)-  Paradise  is  interpreted  alle- 
gorically  as  the  vJ^fioviKov  rrj^  irvxn':  (53 >  23  &.),  a  Stoic  term,  and 
it  is  possible  that  some  of  the  early  Fathers  were  influenced  by 
this  explanation  {infra,  p.  36). 

After  the  time  of  Philo,  the  first  chapter  of  the  first  book  of  the 
Antiquitates  ludaicae  of  Flavins  Josephus  furnished  material  to 
some  of  the  Hexaemeral  writers.  The  account  of  creation  there 
found  is  hardly  more  than  a  paraphrase  of  the  biblical  narrative. 
The  portions  used  by  later  writers  are  that  upon  the  firmament,^ 
the  statement  that  the  Sabbath  was  instituted  because  God  rested 
on  the  seventh  day^  and  the  statement  that  in  Hebrew  ''Adam" 
means  "red.''^ 

Chalcidius  says  (306,  5,  19)  that  all  the  Jews  agreed  that  what- 
ever the  correct  reading  of  Gen.  1:2  it  means  that  matter  was 
made  by  God.  One  artisan  furnishes  another  with  the  material 
of  his  art,  but  ultimately  Nature  provides  it  to  the  first  artisan, 
and  God  gives  it  to  Nature;  there  is  nothing  prior  to  God,  however, 
to  supply  him  with  matter.  It  is  therefore  created  from  nothing 
(310,  2  ff.).  They  held  that  the  "beginning"  was  not  a  beginning 
in  time,  since  time  could  not  exist  before  the  distinction  of  day  and 
night;  but  from  Proverbs  they  concluded  that  the  beginning  was 
the  divine  Wisdom  (307,  8  ft".).     Wisdom  is  made  by  God,  but  not 

'  Cf.  Tim.  69CD,  86C;  especially  SeXeao-^efs  (Philo  58,  3)  with  iJ.4yi<TTov  KaKov 
S4\eap  {Tim.  69D).  Philo  also  touches  the  Platonic  motive  that  love  comes  from  the 
reunion  of  two  parts  of  the  same  body;  cf.  53,  6  ff.,  and  Symp.  191A. 

'  Ant.  Itid.  9,  13  ff.  Josephus  calls  the  ffrmament  crystalline  and  does  not  state 
that  it  is  different  from  the  first  heaven. 

3  10,  3.     He  says  that  in  Hebrew  "Sabbath"  means  "rest."     Cf.  Cedrenus  9,  19. 

4  10,  10;  Zonaras  15,  21  ff.;   Constant.  Manasses  243-44. 


PHILO   JUDAEUS   AND  JEWISH   HEXAEMERAL   WRITINGS  35 

in  time,  for  there  was  no  time  when  God  was  without  Wisdom 
(ibid.  16  ft".). 

Some  were  content  to  think  the  first-made  heaven  and  earth 
those  which  we  see  (308,  i  ff.);  but  others  differed.  Giving  the 
view  of  Philo,  he  continues  to  say  that  others  took  the  heaven  to 
mean  an  incorporeal  thing,  and  earth  matter  without  form,  which 
is  called  "without  form  and  void"  because  it  has  no  qualities  of 
its  own,  although  it  is  the  receptacle  of  all  qualities  (309,  iff.). 


CHAPTER  III 
EARLY   CHRISTIAN  HEXAEMERA '  BEFORE   BASIL 

The  period  between  Philo  and  Basil  has  left  no  complete  Hexae- 
meron  save  the  sections  on  the  subject  in  the  Libri  III  ad  Auto- 
lycum  of  Theophilus  Antiochenus  and  enough  of  the  De  principiis 
and  of  the  commentaries  on  Genesis  of  Origen  to  allow  us  to  form 
an  adequate  idea  of  his  opinions. 

In  a  passage  of  the  Hexaemeron  of  Anastasius  Sinai ta  (96  iD  ff.) 
we  are  told  that  Papias  of  Hierapolis,  the  disciple  of  John,  discussed 
Paradise,  referring  the  biblical  passages  to  the  Christian  church. 
Now  Eusebius  {Hist.  eccl.  Ill,  29,  i)  and  Jerome  {De  uir.  ill. 
17)  state  that  Papias  wrote  only  five  volumes  called  Explanatio 
sermonum  Domini,  so  that  we  are  to  infer  that  any  treatment  of 
the  creation  problem  by  Papias  was  purely  incidental;  nor  is  any 
more  to  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  Pantaenus,  Irenaeus,  and 
Justin  are  mentioned  in  the  same  passage  of  Anastasius  and  in  the 
same  connection.  The  earliest  Christian  work,  therefore,  which 
has  a  place  in  the  tradition  is  that  of  Theophilus.  We  have 
records,  however,  of  lost  Hexaemera  written  between  the  dates  of 
Theophilus  and  Basil  which  show  that  the  early  church  took  great 
interest  in  the  subject.' 

The  chief  importance  of  this  early  period  lies  in  the  fact  that 
during  it  was  originated  nearly  every  type  or  method  of  inter- 
pretation later  developed  by  the  great  representatives  of  this  form 
of  literature.  The  beginnings  of  the  type  of  which  Augustine  is 
the  representative,  wherein  emphasis  is  laid  upon  the  notion  of  the 
pre-existence  of  the  forms  of  things  in  the  Word,  and  upon  the 
non-physical,  to  the  neglect  of  the  physical  and  material  side  of 
the  problem,  may  be  seen  in  the  Platonic-Philonic  elements  of  the 
early  writings,  namely,  in  their  logos  theory.  On  the  other  hand, 
there  are  found  in  Theophilus  and  in  the  fragments  of  Hippolytus 

'  See  in  the  index  Rhodon,  Apion,  Candidus,  Maximus,  Clement,  Methodius, 
Hippolytus,  Victorinus  Petauionensis,  Eusebius  Emessenus,  Heliodorus. 

36 


EARLY   CHRISTIAN   HEXAEMERA    BEFORE   BASIL  37 

explanations  of  the  physical  phenomena  of  the  creative  week  as 
well.  By  the  special  development  of  this  part  of  the  commentary 
to  the  comparative  neglect  of  the  theory  of  the  divine  plan  there 
arose  the  Basilian  type  of  exegesis.  Still  a  third  type  is  that  which 
attempts  to  explain  the  scriptural  narrative  by  making  it  an  edify- 
ing allegory.  From  the  statement  of  Anastasius  cited  above  we 
should  infer  that  Papias,  Pantaenus,  Irenaeus,  Justin,  and  Clement 
made  use  of  this  method  to  a  certain  extent,  and  its  employment  by 
Origen  is  well  known.  There  are  also  instances  of  allegorical  inter- 
pretation in  Theophilus  (e.g.,  ad  Aut.  II,  i4flf.).  Undoubtedly 
Philo,  with  whom  this  was  a  favorite  method,  herein  influenced 
the  Christian  interpreters.  Allegorical  exegesis  persisted  through- 
out the  history  of  the  Hexaemera,  but  the  discussion  of  its  details 
will  not  form  a  part  of  the  present  study.  A  fourth  variety  is  the 
poetic  type,  but  this  too  will  claim  but  passing  attention,  since 
for  the  most  part  the  poetical  Hexaemera  are  merely  paraphrases 
of  the  biblical  account.  Finally  there  should  be  mentioned  those 
short  accounts  of  the  creation  which  some  of  the  chroniclers  pre- 
fixed to  their  works.  Josephus  began  his  treatise  on  Jewish 
antiquities  thus,  as  did  Sextus  Julius  Africanus,  who  wrote  at  the 
beginning  of  the  third  century,  and  the  practice  was  common 
among  the  Byzantine  chroniclers. 

For  information  as  to  the  actual  exegesis  of  the  text  of  Genesis' 
we  are  forced  to  rely  upon  Theophilus  and  Origen,  and  such 
fragments  of  Hippolytus,  Methodius,  and  Victorinus  Petauionensis 
as  survive.  The  account  of  Theophilus  is  the  fullest  of  these. 
He  and  the  rest  of  the  church  believed  that  God  made  matter  out 
of  nothing;*  and  God's  work  is  different  from  that  of  a  human 
artisan  in  that  God  makes  his  own  material,^  and  in  that  God 
makes  the  heaven,  which  is  the  roof,  before  the  earth,  the  founda- 

»  Cf.  supra,  p.  15,  on  the  logos  theory  of  the  early  Hexaemera.  The  logos  as  the 
creative  agent  was  the  aspect  most  emphasized;  cf.,  e.g.,  Vict.  Petau.  De.  fabr. 
tnutid.  3 11  A. 

^  Ad  Aut.  II,  10,  78,  and  4,  54,  where  he  takes  issue  with  the  Platonisls  on  this 
matter. 

J  56;  for  the  same  thought  sec  Basil  32B;  .\mbrosc  i2i.\;  Hugo  of  St.  Victor 
33B.  Cicero  (ap.  Lact.  Inst.  II,  8,  lo-ii)  had  used  the  same  comparison,  but  with 
the  opposite  conclusion,  that  God  had  his  materials  furnished  him. 


38  THE  HEXAEMERAL   LITERATURE 

tion.'  The  "deep"  of  Gen.  1:2  means  the  waters  (13,  94),  which 
was  the  interpretation  used  by  Basil  and  his  followers.  Theophilus 
also  perhaps  suggested  to  Basil  the  explanation  that  the  darkness 
(Gen.  1:2)  was  due  to  the  shadow  cast  by  the  heavens.''  The 
"spirit,"  apparently  wind  or  breath,  was  a  vivifying  principle, 
like  the  soul  of  man,  and  it  separated  heaven  from  the  lower 
darkness  {supra,  p.  18):  the  command  of  God,  the  logos,  then 
lighted  the  world  beneath  the  heavens.  The  firmament  which 
was  then  made  is  different  from  the  heaven  of  Gen.  1:1  (96); 
it  is  the  heaven  visible  to  us.  Half  of  the  water  was  taken  upon 
the  firmament,  whence  it  furnishes  rain  and  dew;  the  other  half 
remained  below.^  The  water  which  had  covered  the  earth  Was  then 
drawn  off  to  form  the  sea  and  the  earth,  which  had  previously 
been  invisible  because  of  the  water,''  was  revealed.  On  the  fourth 
day  the  luminaries  were  created  and  Theophilus  (15,  100)  gives 
the  same  reason  as  Philo  for  their  late  creation.  In  Philo  's  manner 
he  allegorizes  the  number  three  (102).  With  the  universal  hesi- 
tancy of  the  Hexaemeral  writers  to  admit  that  God  is  the  cause  of 
any  evil  he  declares  that  the  beasts  became  harmful  only  when 
their  master,  man,  had  sinned  {supra,  p.  5).  Man's  creation  in 
God's  image  shows  the  honor  due  him  (18,  108)  and  of  the  two 
accounts  the  second  is  added  for  the  sake  of  explicitness.s     Perhaps 

'  This  too  through  Chrysostom  became  a  Hexaemeral  topic.  Theophilus  13,  92; 
cf.  Chrysostom  II,  3,  30;  Anast.  Sin.  860D;  Aethicus  I,  1,  2;  Glyca  29C;  Procopius 
40A. 

*  Theophilus  z6/(/.;  Basil  40C-41B;  Ambrose  141 AB;  pseudo-Eustathius  709C; 
Glyca  32B;  Theodoretus  Qu.  in  Gen.  85C. 

3  This  and  similar  interpretations  prevailed  in  the  early  period.  Josephus  ap. 
Philoponus  155,  i  had  declared  that  a  third  of  the  water  was  sohdified  to  make  the 
firmament,  a  third  was  taken  above  and  a  third  was  left  upon  the  earth;  cf.  Hippo- 
lytus  {Jr.  in  Gen.  I,  7).  Like  Theophilus  are  Severianus  of  Gabala  V,  3;  Theodoretus 
Qii.  in  Gen.  I,  11;   Gennadius  MPG  LXXXV,  1629A. 

■»  Theophilus  with  the  LXX  read  abpaToi  Kal  aKaraffKeuaaros  in  Gen.  i :  2  and 
explained  the  former  term  in  the  manner  indicated,  being  followed  by  Basil  29B; 
Ambrose  136C;  Glyca  52B;  Philoponus  61,  12;  Augustine  Lit.  I,  13;  Chrysostom 
IV,  2;  Procopius  41 B.  Theophilus  explained  the  latter  term  by  saying  that  the 
earth  had  no  plants  and  trees  at  first;  he  is  followed  by  Basil,  Ambrose,  Philoponus 
(//.  cc.)  and  Theodoretus. 

5  Hippolytus  ap.  Leont.  et.  Johann.  gives  a  similar  explanation.  The  first 
account  tells  the  fact  and  the  second  the  manner  of  the  same  creation.  Approximately 
the  same  explanation  is  given  in  other  Hexaemera;  cf.  Beda  Hex.  30C,  42C;  Hrabanus 
461A;   Bruno  161C;   Peter  Comestor  1066B. 


EARLY   CHRISTIAN   HEXAEMERA    BEFORE   BASIL  39 

tacitly  combating  the  doctrine  of  Philo,  Theophilus  says  that  the 
words  "Let  us  make  man"  were  addressed  to  the  Son  (ibid.). 

Hippolytus,  together  with  Theophilus,  should  undoubtedly  be 
given  much  credit  as  a  source  for  the  Hexaemeral  writers  of  the 
immediately  succeeding  period.  St.  Jerome  says  (Ep.  ad  Pamm. 
et  Oct.  7,  p.  749):  "Nuper  S.  Ambrosius  sic  Hexaemeron  illius 
{sc.  Origenis)  compilauit  ut  magis  Hippolyti  sententias  Basiliique 
sequeretur."  We  have  seen  that  certain  fragments  of  Hippolytus 
show  his  agreement  with  Theophilus  {supra,  p.  38),  and  another 
dealing  with  Gen.  i :  7  seems  to  indicate  that  he  was  a  source  for 
Basil.'  These  facts,  together  with  the  statement  of  Jerome 
coupling  so  closely  the  names  of  Basil  and  Hippolytus,  tend  to 
show  that  Hippolytus  probably  interpreted  the  Genesis  story  in 
much  the  same  fashion  as  Basil  and  was  a  rich  source  for  him. 

Theophilus  and  Hippolytus  must  be  taken  as  the  representa- 
tives of  the  prevailing  type  of  the  Hexaemeral  thought  of  this 
period;  compared  with  them,  Origen,  the  third  important  writer 
of  the  time,  was  unique,  less  orthodox,  and  consequently  less 
influential,  although  traces  of  his  influence  are  not  lacking.  His 
doctrine  of  the  Word  was  nearer  to  the  Philonic  type  than  that  of 
his  contemporaries,  and  for  this  alone,  as  the  propagator  of  Platonic- 
Philonic  doctrine,  he  is  important.  Most  of  his  views  on  Hexae- 
meral matters  are  to  be  drawn  from  the  De  principiis,  which  we 
have  partly  in  the  translations  of  Rufinus  and  of  Jerome  (a  few 
passages  only  were  translated  by  the  latter)  and  partly  in  the 
original  Greek. 

Origen's  idea  of  God,  m  the  first  place,  is  peculiar.  God  is 
incorporeal;  his  nature  is  simple,  admitting  no  variation  {De 
principiis  I,  i, 6)  and  his  goodness  is  given  as  the  reason  for  creation. 
But  "He  is  not  Absolute,  but  Perfect,  and  perfection  itself  is  a 
condition."^  Infinity  would  be  incomprehensible  even  to  an 
infinite  God;  therefore  God  created  only  a  limited  number  of 
souls  and  only  so  much  matter  as  he  could  fashion  into  a  cosmos 

^  Ap.  Kirchenvdtcr  Comni.  Prciiss.  Ak.  d.  Wiss.,  Hippolytus  I,  2,  51,  where  he 
says  that  the  first  day  is  called  "one,"  not  "first"  to  show  that  by  its  repetition  it 
completes  the  week  {kvk\ovh^v7)v  Kal  i^SofidSa  SiaTeXoOcraK;   cf.  Basil  49.^6). 

'  Bigg,  Christian  Plalonisis  of  Alexandria  159,  and  n.  2.  In  Origen's  conception 
of  God  Bigg  sees  the  Platonists'  horror  of  the  unlimited. 


40  THE  HEXAEMERAL  LITERATURE 

{De  pr.  II,  9,  i,  with  the  Greek  fragment)  and  thus  his  power  is  lim- 
ited metaphysically  by  the  a-priori  incomprehensibility  of  infinity. 

Origen  also  raised  a  question  with  regard  to  the  deity  which 
long  continued  to  be  a  topic  of  the  Hexaemera.  If  God's  nature 
is  simple  and  unchanging,  how  can  he  at  any  time  begin  to  create  ? 
A  father  cannot  be  a  father  unless  there  be  a  son,  and  God  cannot 
be  omnipotent  unless  there  be  an  outlet  for  his  power  (I,  2,  10). 
Origen  is  forced  to  answer  that  God  made  other  worlds  before  this 
and  will  make  others  after  it  (III,  5,  3).  Of  course  the  creator 
must  at  least  logically  have  preceded  the  series  of  worlds;  for 
Origen  elsewhere  (I,  2,  2)  says  that  wisdom  was  made  before  the 
creations  prefigured  in  it.  The  question  was  raised  by  Augustine 
and  others,  and  while  they  did  not  like  Origen  believe  in  a  series  of 
creations,  they  do  hold  with  him  that  God  is  always  a  creator 
logically  preceding  created  things.  Methodius  {ap.  Phot.  cod.  235) 
criticized  Origen 's  answer.  Methodius  wrote  in  the  dialogue 
form,  and  having  elicited  from  his  opponent  a  denial  that  God  is 
changed  now  that  he  is  not  creating  from  what  he  was  when  he 
was  creating,  he  concludes  that  he  was  not  changed  when  he  began 
to  create  from  what  he  was  previously. 

According  to  Origen,  the  first  creation  (Gen.  1:1)  included 
spiritual  beings  {De  prin.  II,  9,  i);  it  is  not  the  world  in  which 
we  dwell.  At  first  these  souls  were  equal,  but  they  advanced, 
declined,  or  remained  stationary  in  their  condition  in  accordance 
with  their  faithfulness  or  unfaithfulness  (I,  5,  5;  II,  9,  2  and  6);' 
this  depended  wholly  upon  their  own  wills,  for  nothing  was  created 
substantially  good  or  bad.  Through  sin  they  were  reduced  to 
corporeal  life  in  this  world  (III,  5,  4). 

On  the  creation  of  man  Origen  agreed  with  Philo.  The  crea- 
tion described  in  Gen.  chap,  i  refers  to  the  interior  homo  made  in 
God's  image,  the  second  account  in  Gen.  2:7  to  corporeal  man, 
the  plasmatus  homo.''  There  is  little  else  that  survives  of  Origen's 
commentaries  on  the  Hexaemeron. 

'  Moeller,  Gesch.  d.  Kosm.  549  ff.  Philoponus  284,  15  fiF.  opposes  this  view,  and 
there  was  further  criticism  in  mediaeval  times;  supra,  p.  11,  n.  3.  The  doctrine 
evidently  is  based  upon  the  Platonic  metempsychosis. 

^  Horn,  in  Gen.  issC;  supra  p.  32;  cf.  Siegfried,  Philo  von  Alexandrien  359; 
Philo  Leg.  All.  74,  6  ff. 


EARLY   CHRISTIAN   HEXAEMERA   BEFORE    BASIL  4I 

Origen's  influence  was  felt  in  the  polemic  against  astrology,  a 
topic  which  after  him  was  carried  on  by  Basil,  Ambrose.  Philoponus, 
and  others.  Basil  in  particular  uses  many  of  Origen's  arguments 
upon  the  futility  of  the  horoscope.  Origen,  however,  believed  with 
Plato  and  Philo  that  the  stars  are  animated  {De  prin.  I,  7,  3,  and 
Phot.  cod.  8;  cf.  De  pr.  II,  9,  3);  and  he  held  that  the  "powers" 
of  God  can  read  his  commands  in  the  configurations  of  the  stars 
{Com.  in  Gen.  61  A). 

The  surviving  portions  of  Hexaemeral  writings  considered 
above  probably  represent  fairly  accurately  the  nature  of  the  exe- 
gesis employed  at  this  time.  From  all  indications,  the  majority 
of  the  interpreters  were  conservative  and  concrete  in  their  views, 
abiding  closely  by  the  text  of  the  Scriptures,  while  on  the  other 
hand  their  nearness  to  and  familiarity  with  the  philosophers  led 
them  to  emphasize  in  no  small  degree  the  doctrine  of  the  Word, 
wherein  Christianity  approached  closest  to  philosophy,  especially 
to  the  Alexandrian  school  with  its  tendency  to  set  up  a  series  of 
intermediaries  between  God  and  the  world.  The  many  agree- 
ments with  Philo  indicate  that  his  works  were  well  known  and 
influential.  Probably  if  we  had  more  of  the  Hexaemera  of  this 
period  we  should  find  that  most  of  them  were  very  similar  to  the 
passages  of  Theophilus  outlined  above.  The  work  whose  loss  is 
most  to  be  deplored  is  the  '  TiroTviraxrei^t  of  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
which,  to  judge  from  Clement's  extant  works,  must  have  shown 
more  Philonic  influence  than  the  average  in  this  period.  Inasmuch 
as  the  authors  of  the  Hexaemera  were  prone  to  follow  standards, 
once  these  were  set  up.  it  is  fair  to  suppose  that  Basil  found  much 
in  the  writings  of  this  period  which  he  made  part  of  his  own  Hexae- 
tneron. 


CHAPTER  IV 
BASIL 

The  Hexaemeron  of  Basil  the  Great  (bishop  of  Caesarea  a.d. 
370-79)  is  the  earliest  Christian  document  devoted  exclusively 
to  the  subject  of  the  six  days  of  creation,  and  is  of  the  utmost 
importance  in  the  history  of  the  Hexaemera/  Basil  had  the 
advantage  of  a  good  education  at  Athens,  and  was  famiHar,  as  his 
writings  show,  with  Plato,  Aristotle,  and  perhaps  the  neo-Platonists. 
The  Hexaemeron  was  much  imitated  in  later  times  and  from  it  were 
drawn  many  of  the  topics  which  constantly  recur.  Some  of  the 
later  Hexaemera  are  httle  but  revampings  of  Basil 's  work,  notably 
those  of  Ambrose,  the  pseudo-Eustathius,  Philoponus,  and  Glyca. 
His  work  was  translated  into  Latin  by  Eustathius  and  in  this 
manner  became  more  directly  known  to  the  Fathers  of  the  western 
church,  who  had  already  known  it  indirectly  through  Ambrose. 
Although  his  influence  was  felt  more  strongly  in  the  East  than  in 
the  West,  we  find  that  Beda  and  his  followers  used  many  of  the 
topics  originated  by  Basil. 

The  Hexaemeron  was  in  some  particulars  influenced  directly 
by  the  Timaeus,  but  Basil's  Platonism  is  likewise  colored  by 
reminiscences  of  Origen,  Aristotle,  and  Philo,  a  fact  which  it  is 
important  to  recognize.^     Basil  does  not  always  agree  with  Plato. 

1  Studies  of  this  work  have  been  made  by  M.  Berger  {Die  Schopfimgslehre  des  hi. 
Basilius  des  Grossen,  Teile  I  u.  II,  Rosenheim,  1897,  1898)  and  E.  Fialon  {Etude  sur 
S.  Basile,  Paris,  1869). 

2  Theodore  Leslie  Shear  {The  Influence  of  Plato  on  St.  Basil,  Baltimore,  1906) 
comparing  the  Hexaemeron  with  the  Timaeus,  is  inclined  to  disregard  the  possibility 
that  the  influence  of  Plato  may  come  to  Basil  through  the  intermediaries  mentioned 
(cf.  BPW,  December  18,  1909),  and  is  somewhat  too  rash  in  drawing  parallels.  His 
remarks  on  the  passage  where  the  interaction  of  the  elements  is  described  are  without 
point,  as  was  shown  in  CI.  Phil.,  October,  1909,  because  the  Basilian  passage  is  thor- 
oughly Aristotelian  (cf.  De.  gen.  el  corr.  ii,  4).  The  comparison  of  Hex.  33B  5  and 
Tim.  32C  is  based  upon  a  misconception  of  Basil's  meaning.  Shear  has,  however, 
collected  most  of  the  real  parallels  between  Basil  and  the  Timaeus.  E.g.,  there  is  a 
reminiscence  of  Plato's  statement  that  earth  is  necessary  to  make  a  thing  tangible 

42 


BASIL  43 

Plato  is  of  course  among  those  who  believed  in  an  eternal  matter, 
against  whom  Basil  argues  (cf.  32Aff.),  and  Basil  also  finds  fault 
with  Plato's  assertion  that  there  is  but  one  ovpavo^  (56DfT.;  cf. 
Tim.  33A;  Plato  of  course  used  the  term  in  a  different  sense  from 
Basil).  Basil  also  has  the  distinction  between  time  and  eternity — 
for  he  says  that  the  "elder  state"  of  the  world  was  eternal  and 
beyond  time  (13A) — and"  the  topic  that  there  was  no  time  before 
creation  (supra,  pp.  7,  29),  but  the  idea  was  so  well  known,  occur- 
ring in  both  Philo  and  Origen,  that  we  cannot  tell  whether  or  not 
it  is  due  to  Plato's  influence  that  Basil  uses  it.  There  is  however 
an  important  parallel  between  the  two  when  Basil  states  that 
God  bound  the  elements  together  by  a  bond  of  friendship  (Tim. 
32C;  Basil  33A;  Shear  27).  The  statement  that  the  beasts,  as 
contrasted  with  man,  are  bent  toward  the  earth  may  be  derived 
from  Plato,  but  the  idea  was  common  in  Basil's  time  (supra,  p.  10). 
Basil  refers  in  Hex.  57C  to  the  well-known  passage  of  the  Republic, 
616D,  and  makes  reference  to  the  theory  which  Plato  certainly 
held,  that  the  earth  is  immovable  because  it  is  in  the  exact  center 
of  the  universe.'  Basil  does  not  contest  the  theory,  but  says  that 
we  should  rather  wonder  at  the  wisdom  of  God,  which  ordains 
matters  thus,  than  at  the  fact. 

In  language  and  in  thought  Basil  gives  evidence  of  the  adoption, 
to  some  extent,  of  the  Stoic  doctrine  of  seminal  logoi  (supra,  p.  17). 

With  Philo,  Basil  has  in  common  the  Platonic  doctrine  that 

and  fire  to  make  it  visible  {Tim.  31B;  Basil  25A;  Shear  26);  the  etymology  ovpav6t 
from  opaffOai,  which  Shear  (30)  possibly  correctly  thinks  Platonic,  is  found  in  Philo 
(11,  13);  the  Platonic  topic  of  the  two  kinds  of  fire  is  found  in  Basil  121C  14;  Tim. 
58C  (Shear  28).  Other  parallels  are  the  phraseology  in  Tim.  39B  and  Basil  121B  5 
(Shear  31);  the  commonplaces  on  the  division  of  time,  Tim.  39B;  Basil  137B; 
Shear /of.  cil.;  the  statements  about  the  origin  of  flesh,  Tim.  82C;  Basil  168.A.;  Shear 
^S,  and  the  respiration  of  fish,  Tim.  92.\,  Basil  149B;  Shear  loc.  cil.  The  more  impor- 
tant agreements  will  be  especially  mentioned.  .A  probable  minor  parallel  in  phrase- 
ology occurs  in  Basil  132C  and  Tim.  38D. 

Basil  drew  much  scientific  material  from  Aristotle.  On  this  matter  see  K. 
Miillenhoff,  Aristotclcs  bci  Basil  ins  v.  Caesarca,  Hermes  II,  252-58,  and  the  notes  of 
I-ialon  on  his  translation  of  the  Hcxaemcroii. 

^  Hex.  24B;  Phaedo  108E;  Shear  30.  But  sec  .\rist.  De  caelo  ii,  3,  2860  gflf. 
The  scholiast  on  the  Basilian  passage  refers  it  to  Straton  of  Lampsacus;  Giorgio 
Pasquali,  "  Do.xographica  aus  Basiliusscholien,"  .Y<jf//r.  d.  K.  Ges.  Wiss.,  Gottingen, 
1910,  201,  203. 


44  THE  HEXAEMERAL  LITERATURE 

time  did  not  exist  before  the  creation,  as  noted  above;  but  this  is 
also  found  in  the  Homilies  on  Genesis  of  Origen  (147 A),  which 
must  have  been  known  to  Basil.  Basil  probably  derived  from 
Philo  directly  or  indirectly  the  reason  why  the  luminaries  were 
not  created  until  the  fourth  day  {supra,  p.  31),  and  the  notion 
that  both  birds  and  fish  swim  {supra,  p.  32,  n.  3).  Both  likewise 
speak  of  underground  veins  of  water  {supra,  p.  31)  and  Basil 
evidently  refers  to  Philo  and  his  school  when  he  says  that  certain 
Jews  assert  that  the  plural  verb  in  the  command  "Let  us  make 
man"  signifies  that  the  angels  are  addressed  {Hex.  205B;  De  op. 
mund.  25,  17;  supra,  p.  33). 

It  is  difficult  to  tell  how  much  Basil  drew  from  Origen,  because 
so  much  of  the  work  of  the  latter  has  been  lost.  It  is  generally 
supposed,  however,  that  in  asserting  so  firmly  his  belief  that  the 
upper  waters  are  real  water,  and  in  rejecting  an  allegorical  inter- 
pretation of  the  passage,  Basil  directs  his  arguments  against 
Origen,  with  whom  allegory  was  a  favorite  method  of  exegesis.^ 
Basil  owes  many  of  his  arguments  against  astrology  to  Origen, 
and  the  idea  that  it  is  impious  to  assert  that  God  is  ever  inactive 
is  common  to  Origen  and  Basil.^ 

Besides  the  influences  which  we  can  definitely  trace,  it  is  very 
probable  that  Basil  is  indebted  to  the  lost  Hexaemera  of  the  pre- 
vious century  for  many  of  his  topics,  and  especially  to  Hippolytus. 

The  first  two  homilies  of  the  Hexaemeron  deal  with  Gen.  1:1-6. 
Basil  does  not  so  definitely  as  Origen  weave  into  the  Genesis 
narrative  the  doctrine  of  the  Word;  however  he  states  that  there 
was  before  this  world's  creation  an  "elder  state,"  eternal  and 
extra-temporal,  in  which  "the  creator  and  artificer  of  all  completed 
his  works,  intelligible  light  befitting  the  blessedness  of  those  that 
love  the  Lord,  the  rational  and  unseen  natures,  and  the  whole 
system  of  intelligible  things  which  transcend  our  knowledge,  of 
which  we  can  discover  not  even  the  names"  (13 A).  Another 
passage  relating  to  the  same  state  is  33 A:  o  Se  6e6^,  irplv  tl  tcov 

'  Hex.  76A.  Cf.  Garnerius'  preface,  MPG,  XXIX,  clxxxvii,  and  citations;  also 
Origen  Horn,  in  Gen.  148A;  Fialon  373  nn. 

^  Cf.  Origen  De  prin.  Ill,  5,  3;  Basil  32B;  Philo  2,  12.  The  sentiment  is  aimed 
at  the  Epicureans  and  perhaps  Aristotle;  supra,  p.  14. 


BASIL  45 

vvv  opcojxevwv  yeveaOai,  et?  povv  ^a\6fi€vo<;  /cat  opfirjcra'i  ayayelv  et? 
yevecnv  to  /a^  oma,  ofiov  re  ev6i]<jev  oirolov  riva  -^pr)  top  Kocrp-ou 
elvai,  Kal  rCo  eXhei  avTOv  ttjv  dpp.6^ovaav  vXrjv  avvaireyewrjae.  /cat 
ovpavw  p,ev  a^oipicre  ttjv  ovpavCo  Trpeirovaav  (^vcnv  to)  Se  Tii<i  7% 
o-)(^7]fiaTi  rrjv  olxeiav  avrrj  kuI  ot^eiKo p.ivriv  ovaiav  irrre^aXe.  irvp 
8e  Kol  v8(op  Kal  aepa  Stecr^^T^/iaTiae  t€  o)?  i/SovXcTO,  Kal  elt 
ovaiav  TJyayev  &j?  6  eKacTTOv  Xoyo^  roiv  yLvop,evQ)v  aTrrjTei.  The 
clause  "as  the  logos  of  each  separate  thing  demanded"  possibly 
implies  that  Basil  believed  that  God  created  the  ideas  of  things 
in  the  "elder  state";  he  did  not.  however,  like  Gregory  of  Nyssa, 
assert  that,  implanted  by  God  in  the  world  from  the  beginning, 
they  brought  out  of  matter  the  parts  of  the  world  mentioned  in 
the  account  of  the  six  days.  In  various  passages  he  says  that  the 
commands  of  God  as  related  in  Genesis  placed  logoi  in  matter 
during  the  creative  period,  and  that  these  logoi  remained  in  things 
and  determined  their  future  conduct  {supra,  p.  17  and  nn.  1-2). 
Basil's  frequent  assertions  that  God  has  arranged  the  world  in  a 
providential  way  imply  that  he  believed  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
Word.'  But  after  the  fashion  of  Milton,  Basil  prefers  to  depict 
the  "elder  state"  as  an  extra-temporal  period  wherein  the  angels 
dwelt  in  heavenly  light  (cf.  13A  ff.,  40C  ff.),  rather  than  as  God's 
timeless,  changeless  existence  with  his  Word.  His  belief  that  the 
angels  were  created  before  the  material  world  met  with  opposition 
at  various  times  in  the  history  of  the  church.^ 

The  first  creation  as  described  in  Gen.  i :  i  consists  of  the  matter 
of  the  universe  already  formed  into  the  elements,  which  must  be 

'  In  various  connections  providence  is  mentioned  in  13A,  33A,  64C  CF.,  68C  ff., 
69C,  76C  ff.,  lOoD.  iij.'V,  112D,  156-157.^,  i6o.\,  193.^,  193C,  I97.\,  2oo.-\. 

'  .Among  those  who  held  the  same  opinion  as  Basil  are  .Ambrose  131B;  Philoponus 
16,  19  ff.  (a  defense  of  Basil  against  Theodorus  of  Mopsuestia);  .\belard  734A; 
Honorius  De  int.  mutid.  II,  2;  Aethicus  I,  2,  i;  Tatian  Oral.  7;  Glyca  168C  ff.,  who 
cites  as  of  the  same  opinion  Basil 's  brothers  Gregory  of  Xyssa  and  Caesarius,  .Anas- 
tasius,  Severus.  Diodorus.  Amphilochius,  and  John  of  Damascus;  Zonaras  13,  3; 
.Anastasius  858 B;  .Arnold  of  Chartres  1517.A  (quoting  Basil,  .Ambrose,  and  Jerome); 
Greg.  Xaz.  Poem.  dog.  IV,  93,  Oral.  45,  5  (cited  by  lobius  ap.  Phot.  cod.  222,  p.  1866 
40  Bekk.);  cf.  also  Theodos.  Melit.  i,  14-18.  The  .Augustinian  doctrine  is  similar 
and  was  adopted  by  many.  Thetxiorus  of  Mopsuestia  {ap.  Philop.  loc.  cil.)  held  that 
the  angels  were  a  part  of  the  world  and  created  with  it;  so  also  Procopius  36.A;  Thco- 
doretus  Qii.  in  Gen.  I,  3;   Cosmas  167. 


46  THE   HEXAEMERAL   LITERATURE 

understood  to  have  been  included  as  the  means,  in  a  sense,  between 
the  extremes  heaven  and  earth.'  It  was  not  created  wholly  with- 
out form,  and  Basil  explicitly  denies  that  the  words  "unformed 
and  void"  refer  to  an  eternal  formless  principle  like  the  Aristotehan 
substrate  (29Cff.);  but  God  made  the  world,  form  and  matter 
together,  formed  primarily  into  the  four  elements  and  secondarily 
into  the  maxima  mundi  membra,  heaven  and  earth.^  Basil's 
conception  of  matter  is  not  so  clear  and  consistent  as  that  of  his 
brother  Gregory  of  Nyssa.  Following  Aristotle,  Basil  definitely 
states  in  121B  that  matter  can  be  analyzed  into  quality  and  sub- 
strate, which  we  can  separate  in  thought  only,  but  which  God  can 
actually  separate,  and  so  did  when  he  created  the  brightness  of 
light  first  and  the  body  of  the  sun  later  ;3  and  his  explanation  of 
the  interaction  of  the  elements  by  means  of  pairs  of  like  qualities 
is  Aristotelian.  Yet  he  refuses  to  regard  the  heaven  of  Gen.  i :  i 
as  "the  substrate,  a  nature  devoid  of  qualities"  on  the  ground  that 
"if  you  take  away  the  black,  the  cold,  the  heavy,  the  dense,  the 
qualities  existing  in  the  substance  through  the  sense  of  taste,  or 
whatever  else  is  observed  about  it,  the  substrate  will  be  nothing" 
(21A).  This  statement  is  substantially  in  agreement  with  Gregory 
{infra,  p.  55)  but  it  is  inconsistent  with  Basil's  views  elsewhere 
expressed. 

Nearly  as  much  space  in  the  first  two  homilies  is  devoted  to 
the  criticism  of  the  philosophers  who  beheved  the  world  to  be 
coeternal  with  God  as  to  the  exposition  of  Basil's  own  views. 
He  believed  that  matter  was  made  out  of  nothing  by  God,  but 

'  20A.  In  proof  Basil  points  out  that  even  now  the  other  elements  are  found  in 
the  earth.  Reminiscences  are  found  in  Ambrose  132B;  Glyca  36C;  Philoponus 
12,  6;  Theodos.  Melit.  i,  7;  Beda  Hex.  15A;  Angelomus  115D;  Hrabanus  446A; 
Wandalbert  635D;  Honorius //^cx.  257A;  Bruno  149A. 

^  Cf.  33A  cited  above  and  33B:  iirolrijev  6  debs  tov  ovpavov  Kal  tt]v  yrjv  ovk  e| 
r]fj,iff€Las  eK&repov,  dXX'  S\ov  ovpavhv  Kal  6\r)v  yfjv,  ai)TT]v  tt]v  ovalav  rip  tiSei  ffvveiKrjij.- 
fjJvriv.  He  goes  on  to  assert  that  if  matter  without  form  and  God  with  the  knowledge 
of  forms  existed  independently  they  could  not  interact. 

3i2iAff.,  44C.  Others  who  held  that  the  "nature"  of  light  was  made  first, 
following  Basil,  are  pseudo-Eustathius  71 7B;  Glyca  57Bff.;  Severianus  434;  Pro- 
copius  85C  ff.;  Theodos.  Melit.  i,  11  ff.;  Greg.  Nyss.  Hex.  116A  S.  Philoponus  76  ff. 
accepts  Basil 's  view  with  the  stipulation  that  the  transparent  air  was  the  substrate  of 
the  light. 


BASIL  47 

rather  as  an  article  of  faith  dependent  upon  the  revelation  to 
Moses'  than  as  a  thing  logically  to  be  proved.  Consequently 
his  arguments  against  the  philosophers  are  merely  destructive. 
Those  who  assert  that  the  cause  of  the  universe  is  the  elements 
or  atoms,'  he  says  in  SAB,  leave  the  ordering  of  the  world  to 
chance.  Those  who  reason  from  the  standpoint  of  mathematics 
and  astronomy  declare  that  God  and  the  world  are  coeternal, 
not  remembering  that  a  whole,  whose  parts  are  mutable  and 
destructible,  is  itself  of  the  same  nature  (9C-i2A).^  Nor  is  God 
the  involuntary  creator  of  the  world,  as  the  body  makes  its  shadow 
(17B  fi.);^  Moses'  words  refute  them,  for  God  iiroirjaev  <u<?  ayad6<i 
TO  'x^p^a-tfjLOv,  a><?  (70<^o<?  to  KciWicrTOv,  (u<?  Si/i^aro?  to  fieyiaTOv.  Again 
in  32Aff.  he  combats  those  that  hold  matter  pre-existent.5  It  would 
be  impious  to  make  unformed  matter  thus  equal  in  honor  with 
the  all-wise  and  all-powerful  God.  and  again,  if  matter  is  capable 
of  engaging  all  God's  wisdom,  they  make  it  equal  to  God's  unfath- 
omable power ;^  while  if  it  is  not  enough  to  occupy  God's  efforts, 
they  must  blasphemously  assert  that  God  is  idle  {supra,  p.  6). 

Matter  then  had  a  beginning,  as  Moses  says,  and  Basil  (16A  flf.) 
defines  "beginning"  in  four  ways:  (i)  as  the  first  motion;  (2)  as 
the  point  from  which  a  thing  begins;  (3)  as  the  art  which  produces 
an  artistic  product,  and  (4)  as  the  useful  end,'  showing  that  all 
four  apply  to  Gen.  1:1.  In  the  case  of  the  world,  there  is  (i)  the 
first  movement  of  time,  (2)  the  foundations  of  the  world  in  the 
heaven  and  earth,  (3)  a  tcxvikckj  X0709  which  presides  over 
creation,  and  (4)  a  useful  end  toward  which  God  directs  creation, 

'  Cf.  8B,  12B  ff.,  where  he  says  that  science  has  proved  useless  as  a  means  to  gain 
knowledge  of  God;   Berger  18. 

'See  schol.  I-II.  op.  cil.,  p.  195,  which  refer  the  charges  to  certain  of  the  pre- 
Socratics  and  Epicurus. 

J  The  scholiast  says  that  .\ristotle  and  Theophrastus  are  meant;  ibid.  N'os.  VI- 
VII.     Supra,  p.  19. 

<  Referring  to  the  nco-Platonists;  Berger  30  ff.;  Fialon  262-63.  For  the  neo- 
Platonic  position  see  Zellcr  III,  2.  550.  and  n.  3,  553,  n.  i,  and  citations. 

5  Plato  (see  Berger  I,  2;^)  and  his  school. 

'  This  is  what  Origen  did;  supra,  p.  39. 

7  Drawn  from  .Vrist.  .Uel.  iv,  i;  cf.  Berger  I,  4;  Fialon  312.  Reminiscences  are 
found  in  Philoponus  7,  8;  .\mbrose  128;  Hrabanus  444A;   Procopius  36C  ff. 


48  THE   HEXAEMERAL   LITERATURE 

not  vainly  and  at  random.  The  beginning  itself  is  not  time  nor 
even  a  part  of  it  (i6C).  Time  was  created  with  the  world  (13B) 
and  fittingly  involves  in  itself  things  mo\dng  toward  generation 
and  destruction  {ihid.,  C,  supra,  p.  7),  but  all  prior  existence,  of 
God,  his  Word,  and  his  angels,  was  extra-temporal. 

Basil  did  not  admit,  as  we  have  seen,  that  the  first  heaven  was 
a  substance  entirely  without  quaHties;  waiving  discussion,  he 
declares  himself  satisfied  with  the  description  of  its  form  and 
nature  in  Isaiah  51:6  and  40:22.  It  is  "an  attenuated  nature, 
and  not  soHd  or  thick"  (20C-21A).'  He  shows  that  the  earth 
cannot  rest  upon  water,  air,  or  any  solid  support  (21B  ft'.),  but 
is  upheld  by  God,^  although  Basil  did  not  deny  the  validity  of 
the  reasons  of  science  why  the  earth  is  in  the  center  of  the 
universe. 

Explaining  the  meaning  of  a6paro<i  koL  ctKaTaaKevaa-ro^  (Gen. 
1:2  after  the  LXX),  Basil  in  29A  ft.  states  that  the  first  term  is 
applied  to  the  earth  because  there  was  no  one  to  behold  it  and, 
as  Theophilus  had  said,  because  it  was  covered  with  water,  and  the 
second  because  it  was  not  furnished  with  herbs,  trees,  and  the  like. 
''Unformed  and  void"  apphes  also  to  the  heaven.^  The  darkness 
upon  the  face  of  the  waters  was  not,  as  the  Manichaeans  thought, 
an  entity,  but  was  due  to  the  shutting  off  of  the  light  in  which  the 
angels  dwelt  when  the  heaven  was  interposed. •*  Discussing  the 
reference  to  the  spirit  of  God  in  the  same  verse,  Basil  says  that 
according  to  a  certain  Syrian,  the  original  Hebrew  would  be  trans- 
lated by  (TuvedaXire  better  than  by  eirec^epeTo ,  the  figure  being  that 
of  a  bird  sitting  upon  her  eggs.     This  passage  was  much  imitated, 

■  Later  writers  employ  the  same  scriptural  citation;  for  references  to  it  and  to 
Basil,  cf.  Ambrose  132C;  Beda  Com.  192A;  Augustine  Lit.  II,  9,  21-22;  Procopius 
40B;   Pisides  90  fif . ;   Glyca  36A,  41B;  pseudo-Eustathius  709B. 

'  Cf.  Ambrose  134--^;  Honorius  De.  im.  m.  I,  5;  on  Cosmas,  infra,  p.  60;  CI. 
Marius  Victor,  Alethia  I,  80  fF. 

3  Not  all  the  later  expositors  held  this  view;  see  p.  62. 

*  Cf.  Ambrose  141AB;  pseudo-Eustathius  709C;  Glyca  32B;  Theodoretus  Qu.  in 
Gen.  85C  (which,  however,  Sirmond  probably  rightly  rejects);  Theodos.  ^Melit.  i,  9; 
Anast.  Sin.  859.^.  Procopius  45.^  says  that  the  heavenly  light  being  intelligible 
could  not  be  shut  off;  and  Severianus  435  criticizing  Basil  on  the  ground  that  heaven 
s  light,  not  dark,  gives  the  explanation  that  a  mist  arose  and  caused  the  darkness. 


BASIL  49 

the  most  important  citation  of  it  being  in  Jerome's  Quaestiones 
in  Genesim.^ 

The  discussion  of  vs.  3,  where  it  is  asserted  that  the  commands 
of  God  were  not  spoken  like  those  of  a  human  being,  but  were 
the  simple  exercise  of  God's  will  (45B;  cf.  56A,  149A),  gave  rise 
to  a  regular  topic  of  the  later  Hexaemera,'  and  Basil's  solution 
of  the  problem  raised  by  the  passage,  how  the  light  could  be 
created  before  the  sun,  as  noted  above,  likewise  was  frequently 
mentioned.  Before  the  luminaries  were  created  as  its  vehicles  the 
light  caused  day  and  night  by  being  drawn  back  and  sent  forth.^ 

The  firmament  is  different  from  the  first  heaven,  and  supports 
real  water,  the  purpose  of  which  is  to  offset  the  drying  power  of 
the  upper  fires."*     As  for  the  nature  of  the  firmament,  Basil  explains 

'  Basil  44B;  Jerome  Q87B;   Diodorus  of  Tarsus  1563C;   .Ambrose  139A;   .•Augus- 
tine Lit.  I,  18;   pseudo-Eucherius  895B;   Glyca  96C;   Honorius  Hex.  254C;   .Abelard 
735D;    Erigena  II,  19;   Walafrid  Strabus  70B;   Angelomus  ii6.\;    Du  Bartas  10  in 
Sylvester's  translation;    Procopius  45C;    Peter  Comestor  1057.^;    Raleigh  I,   i,  6. 
Through  Du  Bartas  the  idea  came  to  Milton:  P.L.  VII,  234  ff.: 
but  on  the  waterj'  calm 
His  brooding  wings  the  Spirit  of  God  outspread 
And  vital  virtue  infused  and  vital  warmth 
Throughout  the  fluid  mass. 
In  the  passage  of  Abelard  cited,  the  idea  is  combined  with  another,  that  of  the  cosmic 
egg.     The  yolk  of  an  egg  corresponds  to  the  earth,  the  white  to  water,  the  membranous 
lining  to  the  air,  the  shell  to  fire  (so  Conches,  De  phil.  miiiid.  85.A).     The  details  of 
the  same  comparison  differ  slightly  in  Honorius  De.  im.  mund.  I,  i,  and  Pisides  1219  ff. 

'  Cf.  Ambrose  142C;  Greg.  Nyss.  Z?ex.  88C;  Philoponus  5,  21;  .Augustine  .l/an. 
I,  9,  15;  Lib.  imp.  5,  19;  Lit.  I,  9,  16;  Conf.  XI,  6;  pseudo-Eucherius  895D;  Bruno 
149A.  Theophilus  (supra,  p.  38)  apparently  referred  the  commands  in  Genesis  to 
the  Word;  as  did  Augustine  and  his  followers  (supra,  p.  20). 

3  48C.  Augustine  LJ/.  IV,  22  found  this  theory  too  difficult  to  accept.  Though 
Basil  did  not  so  believe  (cf.  48B,  137B)  .Ambrose,  who  did  not  adopt  all  Basil's 
doctrine  of  the  first  light,  says  (191B):  Sed  consideremiis  quia  aliud  est  lumen  diei, 
aliud  lumen  solis  el  lunae  el  lumen  stellarum,  eo  quod  sol  ipse  radiis  suis  fulgorem  diurtw 
lumini  uideatur  adiuugere,  etc.  Hence  the  statement  of  Bruno  149K;  similarly 
pseudo-f^ustathius  717D  ff.  claimed  that  the  sun  is  lighted  by  the  day. 

*  56D  ff.,  where  Basil,  opposing  the  view  of  those  that  say  there  is  but  one  heaven, 
says  that  he  will  even  admit  that  there  is  a  third,  that  to  which  the  apostle  Paul  was 
snatched.  Basil  and  his  brother  Gregory  differed  upon  the  subject  of  the  drying 
power  of  the  lire.  Basil  declared  that  the  fire  would  have  eventually  dried  up  all 
the  water  had  not  God  made  a  sufficient  supply  to  last  as  long  as  the  world  (64C  ff.), 
while  Gregory  held  that  an  even  balance  is  maintained  in  the  total  amounts  of  the 


50  THE  HEXAEMERAL  LITERATURE 

the  definition  of  <nepe6v  given  by  the  philosophers  (60  D  fT.)  and 
adds  that  the  Scriptures  use  the  word  to  refer  to  thunder,  which 
he  thinks  is  caused  by  the  breaking  forth  of  air  closely  confined 
and  made  more  dense  in  the  hollows  of  the  clouds/  But  the  firma- 
ment, although  it  is  generally  thought  that  it  was  made  out  of 
the  waters,''  is  neither  ice  nor  any  crystalline  stone  of  the  varieties 
thought  to  result  from  the  excessive  solidification  of  water  (61 A  ff.)-^ 
It  is  not  called  firmament  from  its  solidity,  resistance,  or  weight,  but 
in  contrast  with  the  upper  parts  of  the  universe,  which  are  so  fine  in 
quality  as  to  be  imperceptible;  it  is  "a  place  having  the  faculty  of 
separating  moisture,"  letting  the  finer  parts  pass  aloft  and  the 
coarser  below  (68B  ff.).  Basil  answers  the  objection  that  the 
waters  could  not  stay  on  the  surface  of  the  firmament  without 
slipping  off  by  saying  that  because  the  firmament  looks  vaulted 
from  the  inside  it  does  not  follow  that  it  is  rounded  on  the  outside.'' 
The  fourth  homily  deals  with  the  collection  of  the  waters 
and  the  appearance  of  the  dry  land.  Basil  asserts  that  the  water 
by  God's  command  at  this  time  received  the  property  of  flowing 
down  hill,  so  that  God  does  not  command  it  to  do  a  perfectly 
natural  thing.s  The  same  command  was  responsible  for  the 
appearance  at  that  time  of  the  hollows  in  which  the  sea  and  its 
arms  he.^    The  sea,  that  is,  the  ocean  of  which  the  circumnavi- 

elements,  each  having  the  power  to  exhaust  the  others  {Hex.  89A  ff.).  The  function 
of  the  waters  above  the  firmament  as  a  shield  against  the  fire  is  a  frequently  mentioned 
Hexaemeral  topic;  pseudo-Eustathius  71 2B;  Theodoretus  Qu.  in  Gen.  I,  11;  Ambrose 
150B;  Augustine  Lit.  II,  5;  Gennadius  ap.  MPG  LXXXV,  1629B;  Glyca  40B; 
Severianus  II,  3;  Abelard  743D;  Isidorus  De  ord.  creat.  921B;  Du  Bartas  52  in  Sylves- 
ter's translation;   VVandalbert  636B;   Procopius  72B  ff.;   CI.  Marius  Victor  I,  71  ff. 

'  Cf.  Aristotle  Meteor,  ii,  9;  Fialon  op.  cit.  361,  n.  5. 

"■  So  Hippolytus  had  said  {fr.  in.  Gen.  i :  7).     Cf.  Theodos.  Mel.  2,  5-6. 

3  For  such  views  see  Josephus  Ant.  lud.  9,  13  (cf.  Glyca  41C,  who  cites  him  but 
follows  Basil);  so  also  Gennadius  1629B;  Severianus  442;  Procopius  7 2C;  cf.  Theo- 
doretus 92B;  Cosmas  168.  Philoponus  118,  6  thinks  it  was  made  out  of  water  and 
is  like  glass.  Following  Basil  are  Theodos.  Mel.  2,  7-9;  Raleigh  I,  i,  8  (citing  Basil); 
Milton  P.L.  VII,  263:  "And  God  made  The  firmament,  expanse  of  liquid,  pure, 
Transparent  elemental  air." 

''60BC;  cf.  Ambrose  148D.  sgiC;  cf.  Procopius  73C;  supra,  p.  17. 

'*85B;  so  Greg.  Nyss.  Hex.  89A  (who  added  that  similar  receptacles  were  then 
prepared  for  the  upper  v/aters  on  the  outer  surface  of  heaven);  Glyca  5 2D;  Proco- 
pius loc.  cit.;  Severianus  II,  i;  Beda  Hex.  20B;  Hrabanus  45iB;  Angelomus 
119D;  Peter  Lombard  II,  14,  5;  Bandinus  II,  14;  DuBartas  60  in  Sylvester's  trans- 
lation; Theodosius  Mel.  2,  13  ff.;  Milton  P.L.  VII,  289. 


BASIL  51 

gators  tell,'  was  brought  into  its  present  confines  and  kept  there 
by  God's  command,  so  that  it  cannot  encroach  upon  the  dry  land.* 
At  this  point  Basil  introduces  an  elaborate  encomium  of  the  sea, 
together  with  a  list  of  the  principal  rivers,  which  furnished  an 
example  for  the  later  writers.^ 

The  homilies  that  follow  deal  with  the  creation  of  the  fish, 
birds,  beasts,  herbs,  and  trees.  There  are  here  introduced,  for 
the  first  time  in  the  Hexaemeral  tradition,  anecdotes  about  the 
animal  and  vegetable  kingdoms,  illustrating  the  idea  that  Provi- 
dence creates  nothing,  even  things  apparently  harmful,  which  is 
without  its  use  to  man  or  beast,  and  that  Providence  endows 
irrational  creatures  with  the  instincts  of  self-preservation.  Ulti- 
mately many  of  these  anecdotes  came  from  Aelian  and  Aristotle; 
but  Basil  probably  drew  them  from  the  Fhysiologus,  a  collection 
of  about  fifty  such  stories  which  seems  to  have  originated  in 
Alexandria  early  in  the  Christian  era."  Basil  himself  became  a 
source  for  this  material;  the  later  writers  who  introduce  such 
matter  are  Ambrose,  the  pseudo-Eustathius,  Glyca,  Pisides,  and 
DuBartas. 

The  herbs  and  trees  passed  through  the  process  of  develop- 
ment to  maturity  in  a  short  space  of  time  (104A).  In  their  struc- 
ture they  give  many  evidences  of  the  providential  ordering  of  the 
universe — for  example,  the  joints  in  the  stem  of  the  reed  prevent 
its  being  broken  by  the  weight  of  the  head  (looD). 

Basil  now  passes  to  the  discussion  of  the  creation  of  the 
luminaries.  The  sun  was  made  as  the  substance  to  receive  the 
quality  light,  made   separately  by  the   first  command  of  God.s 

'  85C  ff.;  Glyca  49D;  Theodoretus  Qm.  in  Gen.  I.  12;  .\mbrose  161C;  pseudo- 
Eustathius  713.^;  Severianus  III,  i;  Beda  loc.  cil.;  Honorius  Hex.  256B.  Jerome 
Heb.  Qu.  988.\  is  sometimes  cited  here  to  the  effect  that  in  Hebrew  any  collection  of 
water  is  a  "sea";   Peter  Comestor  1059C. 

'84B;  cf.  Glyca  52B;  Rupert  of  Deutz  228C;  pseudo-Eustathius  71 2C;  Pisides 
393  ff.;   Du  Bartas  61  (Sylvester);   Bas.Seleuc.32B. 

^6sCS.;  cf.  .\rist.  Meteor,  i.  13,  14  ff.  (see  Miillenhoff,  Hermes  II,  252  ff.). 
DuBartas  gives  a  similar  list  of  rivers. 

^  See  F.  Lauchert,  Gesch.  d.  Physiologus,  Strassburg,  1889;  K.  Krumbacher, 
Byz.  Lit.  874  ff.;  Encyc.  Br'ttl.  s.v.  " Physiologus. " 

s  i2i.\ff..  using  the  Aristotelian  terminolog>'.  Cf.  Milton,  P.L.  VII.  359.  361: 
" Of  light  by  far  the  greater  part  he  took  ....  and  placed  ....  In  the  sun's  orb." 


52  THE  HEXAEMERAL  LITERATURE 

The  luminaries  as  ''signs"  are  useful  in  foretelling  weather  con- 
ditions and  the  like,  but  the  pretensions  of  astrology  are  false/ 

The  last  three  homihes  deal  with  the  creation  of  fish,  birds, 
beasts,  and  finally  man.  Much  of  their  content  is  devoted  to  the 
recital  of  the  anecdotes  mentioned  above.  Basil  approaches  the 
discussion  of  the  creation  of  man  with  great  reluctance  and  in 
comparison  with  the  other  topics  treated  he  devotes  a  very  short 
space  to  this.  This  defect  was  later  suppHed  by  the  homilies  on 
the  creation  of  man  by  his  brother,  Gregory  of  Nyssa.  Basil 
interprets  the  use  of  the  plural  "Let  us  make"  as  a  reference  to 
the  Son,^  and  censures  certain  Jews — doubtless  including  Philo — 
for  saying  that  God  addressed  himself  or  that  God  addressed  the 
angels  (204C,  205B).  The  use  of  the  singular  number  in  "God 
made",  following,  shows  that  God  is  one,  and  is  a  guard  against 
Greek  polytheism. 

'i25ff.  Plato  briefly  condemned  astrology,  Tim.  40CD;  cf.  Shorey's  note, 
AJP  X,  58.  Plotinus  Enn.  II,  3  protested  against  it;  cf.  also  Philo  18,  15  ff., 
19,  14  flf.  Basil  borrows  many  of  his  arguments  against  astrology  from  Origen.  E.g., 
both  make  the  point  that  it  is  impossible  to  cast  the  horoscope  exactly  at  the  moment 
of  the  child's  birth  (Basil  129A;  Orig.  Com.  in  Gen.  yj);  that  if  the  stars  cause  evil, 
the  responsibility  for  the  same  is  cast  upon  their  maker  (Basil  132D;  Origen  53B); 
and  finally,  that  if  the  stars  govern  human  destinies,  man  is  not  responsible  for  his 
actions  at  all  (Basil  133B;  Origen  52).  Most  of  the  writers  say  that  predictions  of 
the  weather,  seasons,  and  the  like  are  all  that  can  be  made  from  the  stars;  cf.  pseudo- 
Eustathius  720B  ff.;  Glyca  69D;  Severianus  III,  3;  Theodoretus  Qu.  in  Gen.  I,  15; 
Honorius  Hex.  257D;  Hrabanus  455A;  Angelomus  120D;  Rupert  of  Deutz  23SD; 
Beda  Hex.  22B  ff.,  Com.  197D;  Ambrose  198AB;  Augustine  Lit.  II,  14,  Lib.  imp. 
13;  Philoponus  187,  21  ff.;  Abelard  751B  ff.  Some  say  that  the  stars  influence  the 
human  body  or  character:  Neckam  I,  7;  Hugo  of  St.  Victor  36C;  others  say  they 
foretell  wars  and  disasters;  DuBartas  (Sylvester  103);  Glyca  77B;  Theodoretus 
loc.  cit.;  cf.  Ambrose  19SA.  The  Byzantine  chroniclers  admit  the  validity  of  divina- 
tions if  reverently  performed  and  not  in  excess;  Theod.  Mel.  3,  3  ff.  The  later  writers 
tend  to  have  some  belief  in  astrology;  cf.  Raleigh  I,  i,  11.  Augustine  admits  that 
astrologers,  either  by  unconscious  occult  power  or  by  the  help  of  evil  spirits,  some- 
times tell  the  truth;  Lit.  II,  17,  37. 

'  This  is  a  regular  topic  of  the  Hexaemera;  Theophilus  II,  18,  108  had  employed 
it.  Following  Basil  are  Ambrose  169A,  257AB;  Philoponus  235,  20;  Augustine 
Lib.  imp.  16;  Abelard  760B;  Greg.  Nyss.  De.  hom.  op.  140B,  Horn.  in.  uerb.  Fac. 
Ham.  259C;  Glyca  148D;  pseudo-Eucherius  900C;  Severianus  IV,  5;  Beda  Hex. 
28D,  Com.  200C;  Theodoretus  Qu.  in.  Gen.  I,  19;  Hildebert  1215D;  Peter  Lombard 
II,  16,  i;  Bandinus  II,  16;  Hugo  of  St.  Victor  37C;  Angelomus  122A;  Remi  57A; 
Theodos.  Melit.  4,  18  ff.;  Bas.  Seleuc.  36A;  Hrabanus  4S9C;  Bruno  157A;  Peter 
Comestor  1063C;  Milton  P.L.  VII,  518:  "then  to  his  Son  audibly  spake." 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  FOLLOWERS  OF  BASIL 

In  the  discussion  of  the  later  Greek  and  the  Byzantine  writers 
on  the  Hexaemeron  the  influence  of  both  Gregory  of  Nazianzus 
and  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  the  latter  the  brother  of  Basil  and  both 
contemporary  with  him,  must  be  considered. 

Of  these  two  eminent  theologians,  the  former  wrote  no  Hexae- 
meron, but  mention  of  him  is  constantly  made  in  the  later  writings, 
and  he  treated  incidentally  of  the  creation,  although  without 
reference  to  the  six  days,  in  passages  of  his  Orationcs  and  in  one 
whole  section  of  the  Poemata  dogmatica  (4).  Among  the  Hexae- 
meral  topics  which  he  mentions  may  be  cited  that  of  the  vojjtck 
k6<7^io<;  {Or.  38,  10;  P.D.  4,  67);  God's  goodness  as  the  cause  of 
creation  {Or.  45,  5;  P.D.  4,  62  ff.);  the  prior  creation  of  the  angels 
{supra,  p.  45);  the  denial  of  the  Manichaean  contention  that 
the  first  darkness  was  the  principle  of  e\'il  and  a  substance  {P.D. 
4,  24  fT.))  and  the  statement  that  man  is  a  microcosmus  {Or.  38,  11). 

Gregory  dwells  upon  the  notion  that  God  is  actively  interested 
in  the  universe,  and  attacks  the  theories  that  assert  the  contrar>'. 
God  was  "moved  by  the  contemplation  of  himself"  before  the 
creation,'  but  this  did  not  satisfy  his  goodness,  and  creation^ 
took  place  to  give  it  broader  scope.  It  is  a  Greek  fable  that  mat- 
ter and  form  are  coeternal  with  God  {P.D.  4,  3-4).  Gregory  also 
faces  the  questions  how  God  can  be  impelled  to  create,  and  why 
he  created  so  late,  and  answers  them  by  saying  that  to  God.  who 
rules  in  eternity,  not  in  time,  all  things  are  one  {P.D.  4,  71). 

Gregory  of  Nyssa  dealt  more  directly  \\\\h.  the  Hexaemeron, 
and,  as  a  source  for  the  later  Greek  compilations,  ranks  second 

'  P.D.  4,  62  flf.;  Or.  45,  5;  cf.  Arist.  Md.  xii,  1072ft  15.  Oregon,'  defines  God 
largely  by  negations;  cf.  R.  Gottwald,  De  Gregorio  Nazianzeno  Platonico,  Breslau, 
1906,  which  is  an  excellent  index  of  Gregory's  philosophical  beliefs  from  the  stand- 
point of  their  Platonic  tendencies. 

'The  terms  descriptive  of  God's  creative  action  are  voflv,  irrotlv  (Or.  45,  5; 
38,  10;  P.D.  4,  20).     Cf.  P.D.  I,  34  on  the  Son. 

53 


54  THE   HEXAEMERAL   LITERATURE 

only  to  Basil.  To  him  are  ascribed  two  sets  of  homilies  on  the 
creation  of  man  and  a  treatise  on  the  Hexaemeron.  In  the  latter, 
written  at  the  request  of  his  brother,  Peter  of  Sebaste,  Gregory- 
declares  that  it  is  his  purpose  to  defend  Basil  against  certain  critics 
who  alleged  obscurity  in  the  explanation  of  the  making  of  the 
light  and  the  later  creation  of  the  luminaries,  and  in  the  passages 
dealing  with  the  heaven,  the  firmament,  and  the  heaven  to  which 
Paul  was  snatched  {Hex.  64C).  His  own  explanation  why  Basil's 
account  was  not  satisfactory  to  all  is  the  very  natural  one  that 
Basil  framed  his  discourse  to  suit  a  miscellaneous  audience   (65A). 

Gregory  had  high  respect  for  his  brother  Basil  and  was  loath 
to  reject  any  of  his  interpretations.  He  too  declared  that  "heaven 
and  earth"  must  be  taken  to  include  all  other  things  intermediate 
between  these  two  extremes  (69D),  and  his  notion  of  the  light 
which  was  first  made  is  essentially  like  that  of  Basil  (ii6Aff.). 
In  the  course  of  his  argument,  however,  Gregory  advances  theories 
unhke  those  of  Basil,  and  he  differs  from  the  latter  in  stating  that 
the  world  of  sense  is  bounded  by  the  world  of  ideas,  a  notion  which 
perhaps  was  suggested  by  the  myth  of  the  Phaedrus^ 

It  has  been  seen  that  the  underlying  theory  of  the  cosmology 
of  Gregory  is  that  God  created  all  things  potentially  in  the  begin- 
ning in  the  creation  of  their  logoi  or  natures  {supra,  p.  17),  and 
that  the  subsequent  development  of  the  world  is  the  working  out 
of  the  processes  set  in  motion  by  the  divinely  created  causes.^ 
Gregory's  account  of  the  first  steps  in  this  development  is  as  follows. 
When  all  matter  was  made  together,  the  elements  were  mingled 
and  the  light  of  the  fire  was  obscured  by  the  preponderance  of 
other  substances  (7 2D).  But  the  fire,  because  of  its  natural 
mobility,  rose  quickly  to  the  outmost  edge  of  the  sensible  world, 
and  there,  since  it  had  nothing  in  common  with  the  world  of  ideas 

'  Cf.  Phaedr.  246E  ff.  For  a  discussion  of  the  influence  of  the  Phaedrus  myth 
upon  Aristotle's  doctrine  of  the  spheres,  ancient  philosophical  thought,  the  Hebrew 
apocalyptic  literature,  and  finally  upon  Christian  thought,  and  especially  upon  Dante, 
see  J.  A.  Stewart,  The  Myths  of  Plato,  London,  1905,  350  ff.  It  is  remarkable  that  its 
influence  upon  Gregory  was  not  noted  by  C.  Gronau  {De  Basilio  Gregorio  Nazianzeno 
Nyssenoque  Platonis  imitator ibiis,  Gottingen,  1908). 

^  His  assumption  that  the  first-made  heaven  and  the  firmament  are  identical  allows 
him  to  escape  the  difficulty  raised  by  the  description  of  its  creation  on  the  second  day. 


THE   FOLLOWERS   OF    BASIL  55 

and  could  not  mingle  with  it,  naturally  began  a  circular  motion, 
because  motion  in  a  straight  line  was  precluded  (77A),  by  its 
passage  above  and  below  the  lower  mass  making  day  and  night. 
All  this  Moses  ascribed  to  the  direct  command  of  God  that  it 
might  be  evident  that  natural  sequence  is  due  to  God's  direction. 
The  firmament  is  simply  the  boundary  of  the  material  world  (80D), 
called  firm  by  contrast  with  the  ideas  beyond,  not  because  it  is 
actually  something  firm  and  material  (80D,  81A).  Above  it.  in 
in  the  world  of  ideas,  and  hence  different  from  the  lower  waters, 
are  the  upper  waters  (84C  ff.).  The  form  of  speech  in  Genesis 
shows  that  the  two  kinds  of  waters  were  never  mingled.  The 
firmament  and  the  first-made  heaven  are  identical  (85B). 

Most  of  the  remainder  of  the  treatise  is  occupied  with  a  detailed 
discussion  of  the  question  on  which  Gregory  and  Basil  differed, 
whether  or  not  the  fires  of  heaven  destroy  the  waters  below  them 
{supra,  p.  49,  n.  4).  Gregory's  belief  that  the  elements  pass 
into  one  another'  and  his  account  of  the  method  of  this  change, 
with  the  use  of  the  Aristotelian  term  aXXotoxrt?,^  show  that 
Gregory  knew  Aristotle's  theories  and  to  a  certain  extent  adopted 
them.  But  he  distinctly  states  that  matter  is  made  up  of  the 
qualities  (690),^  all  of  which  are  in  themselves  purely  conceptual; 
and  so,  although  he  often  uses  the  Aristotelian  term  vTroKei/xevov 
(cf.  108D,  etc.)  and  apparently  imitates  Aristotle's  account  of 
physical  change,  his  fundamental  principles  are  not  purely  Aris- 
totelian. 

Gregory's  other  works  which  bear  upon  the  Hexacmeron  are 
the  treatise  on  the  creation  of  man  and  the  two  sermons  upon 
the  same  subject,  which  supplement  the  Hexacmeron  of  Basil. 
In  the  absence  of  Basilian  material  the  later  commentators  drew 
often  from  Gregory  upon  the  subject  of  man  and  his  creation. 

'  Cf.  Hex.  108B  and  .\rist.  Dc  gen.  et  eorr.  S2gh,  24  (f. 

^  Hex.  104D:  ....  OLVuadiU  6  CLTfibi  ....  Kal  iv  tt/  nera^o\^  Trjf  v-jpat  xoi6- 
TTjTos  rd  u\LKbv  dttffitxraro,  frjpij  di  ytudfitvoi  trpbs  rb  avyffvh  Kadti\Kvc6i)  *ai  axt- 
Kar^ffTri  yy.  Arist.  De  gen.  el  eorr.  3296  10:  iWolwait  ixlv  ianv,  irav  i/To^itlt^yrot 
ToO  viroKfifji^yov,  ai<Tdr)Tov  6vT0i,  ixtrapdWrj  iv  toU  avroO  xd$€ffii'.  1)  ivairrioif  oCffii' 
^  fiera^v.     The  term  dWolwais  is  found  in  104B,  108B,  etc. 

^  Those  named  arc  Kov<pov,  /3opv,  vavrbv,  apai6v.  fia\aK6v,  iyrirvTOf,  iryf>6v,  ivP^'i 
^vxpbv,  dtpubv,  xpufux,  -irepiypaipifi,   didffT-np.a. 


56  THE  HEXAEMERAL  LITERATURE 

At  the  beginning  of  the  treatise  De  opificio  hominis  Gregory 
briefly  summarizes  the  work  of  the  previous  days  of  creation.  In 
the  beginning  heaven  surrounded  matter,  of  which  the  heavy 
parts  settled  in  the  middle.  God's  power  bound  it  together  by 
the  two  forces  rest  and  motion  (128C),  and  his  wisdom  assigned 
spatial  change  to  the  heavens,  which  are  not  subject  to  qualita- 
tive change,  and,  vice  versa,  qualitative  change  to  the  unmoving 
lower  mass,  so  that  no  one  might  conclude  from  the  immutability 
of  creation  that  it  was  God.^ 

Of  the  topics  in  the  De  opificio  hominis  which  were  echoed  by 
later  writers  some  of  the  most  important  are  the  comparison  of 
man's  entrance  into  the  world  to  the  entrance  of  a  king  into  his 
kingdom;^  the  identification  of  the  divine  image  in  man  not 
only  with  his  rational  powers  and  virtues  but  also  with  his  kingly 
quahties;^  mention  of  the  fact  that  man  is  called  the  microcosmus 
(lyyDff.);  the  topic  of  his  erect  stature  (144B,  Horn,  in  uerb. 
Fac.  Horn.  293C);  and  the  statement  that  the  form  of  the  divine 
command  that  created  him  showed  man  honor,  because  all  other 
things  had  been  created  by  a  single  word."*  Much  is  said  of  the 
design  displayed  in  the  creation  of  man.  Man  is  unarmed  with 
horns,  hoofs,  or  the  like,^  but  if  he  were  thus  armed,  he  would  be 
but  a  beast;  his  ingenuity  has  devised  better  substitutes  and  has 
subdued  the  animals  to  his  will  (140D  ff.).  Especial  emphasis  is 
laid  upon  the  fact  that  man  alone  has  hands, ^  which  allows  him 
free  opportunity  to  exercise  his  rational  faculties;  for  example,  if 

'  Cf.  Plato,  PoUt.  269D;   Plut.  De  an.  proc.  in  Tim.  1024E;   Pisides  352  ff. 

=  132D;  Theod.  Mel.  4,  $&.;  Chrysostom  VIII,  3;  Procopius  116A;  Gregory 
133B  also  compares  the  induction  of  man  into  the  world  to  the  inviting  of  a  guest  to 
a  banquet;  supra,  p.  S3',  and  in  Severianus  IV,  3,  pseudo-Eucherius  901A,  and  Beda 
Com.  201 C  man  is  compared  to  the  master  of  a  house. 

3i36Bfif.;  cf.  Severianus  V,  3-4;  Philoponus  239,  17  ff.;  Diodorus  of  Tarsus 
1564C;  Theodoretus  Qu.  in  Gen.  I,  20;  Theodos.  Mel.  4,  27  ff.;  Raleigh  I,  2,  i. 

^  De  horn.  op.  136A,  Horn,  in  uerb.  Fac.  Horn.  259A:  Theod.  Mel.  4,  15  ff.; 
Peter  Comestor  1064A. 

5  The  earUest  examples  of  this  topic  are  Xen.  Cyrop.  ii,  3,  9;  Plat.  Prot.  320E  ff.; 
Arist.  De.  part.  an.  iii,  2,  6626,  28  ff.'  For  a  collection  of  passages  and  discussion, 
cf.  S.  O.  Dickerman,  op.  ciL,  48  ff.,  who  refers  them  to  a  source  before  Xenophon  and 
Euripides,  perhaps  Protagoras. 

6  Cf.  Dickerman  82. 


THE    FOLLOWERS   OF    BASIL  57 

he  had  no  hands,  his  mouth  would  have  to  be  of  the  proper  shape 
to  gather  food  after  the  manner  of  beasts,  and  he  would  be  dumb 
(148C).  Gregory  here  discusses  a  topic  also  found  in  the  Latin 
Hexaemera,  what  would  have  been  the  means  of  continuing  the 
race  had  there  been  no  sin,  and  concludes  that  there  would  have 
been  no  need  of  marriage  then  (189A).  The  soul  was  made  at  the 
same  time  as  the  body  (233D).'  In  the  passage  dealing  with  the 
physiology  of  man  at  the  end  of  the  treatise  teleology  is  again  a 
common  motif.  The  Homilies  on  the  text ' *  Let  us  make  man ' '  con- 
tain many  of  the  usual  topics  but  nothing  of  especial  importance. 
In  the  later  Greek  Hexaemera,  Basil  and  Gregory  are  by  far 
the  chief  authorities.  Some  authors  follow  very  closely  the  lead 
of  Basil — for  example,  Ambrose,  Philoponus,  and  the  pseudo- 
Eustathius — or  of  Basil  and  Gregory  of  Nyssa — as  Procopius  and 
the  Byzantine  chroniclers;  but  over  against  these  may  be  set  the 
authors  of  Hexaemera  of  the  more  unscientific  and  credulous 
variety.  Theodorus  of  Mopsuestia  and  his  teacher.  Diodorus  of 
Tarsus,  began  this  movement,  in  which  the  other  prominent  names 
are  those  of  Theodoretus,  Severianus  of  Gabala.  and  Cosmas 
Indicopleustes.  These  authors  disagreed  in  some  matters  with 
the  Basilian  school,  and  held  certain  new  and  distinctive  ideas. 
Besides  this  group  there  belong  in  this  period  Johannes  Chrysos- 
tomus  and  Anastasius  Sinaita,  whose  Hexaemera  are  largely  of 
the  allegorical  and  edifying  character,  and  will  therefore  receive 
but  passing  notice.  The  Byzantine  chroniclers,^  who  give  short 
accounts  of  the  six  days'  work,  form  a  fourth  group;  and  in  addi- 
tion should  be  mentioned  the  Byzantine  poet  Pisides.  His  Uexae- 
meron  was  the  model  of  Du  Bartas,  and  without  giving  a  clear 
account  of  the  six  days,  presents  scientific  discussions  of  the  heavens 
and  their  movements,  sections  dealing  with  the  angels  and  the 

'  In  setting  forth  this  view  he  condemns  what  he  calls  the  Grccizing  of  Origen 
(229B  fl.). 

'  The  Byzantine  chronicles  were  mere  compilations  made  to  serve  the  particular 
purpose  of  the  writer  and  are  hardly  to  be  regarded  as  separate  literary  works;  Krum- 
bacher,  Byz.  Lit.  362.  They  added  nothing  new  on  the  Hexaemeron.  Sec  in  the 
index  Symeon  Logothetes,  Synceiius,  Cedrenus,  .\nonymous  of  the  loth  ccnlur>-, 
I)seudo-I'olydeuics,  Thcodosius  Melitenus,  Leo  Grammaticus,  Ztmaras,  Manasses, 
C'.lyca. 


58  THE  HEXAEMERAL  LITERATURE 

doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  many  of  the  stories  drawn  from  the 
Physiologus. 

Among  the  writers  who  follow  Basil  most  closely,  Philoponus 
and  Ambrose  are  the  most  important.  The  former  of  these,  the 
AristoteUan  commentator,  was  a  learned  man,  and  his  De  opificio 
mundi  is  really  a  commentary  on  Basil's  Hexaemeron,  which  he 
tries  to  explain  by  using  material  drawn  from  Plato,'  Aristotle,^ 
and  the  astronomers.^  Philoponus  aims  to  defend  Basil's  posi- 
tion, and  an  important  part  of  his  work  is  the  defense  of  Basil 
against  Theodorus  of  Mopsuestia  and  his  polemic  against  the 
latter.''  In  his  discussions  of  the  numbers  six  and  seven  (304, 
18  ff.)  there  are  traces  of  the  influence  of  Philo. 

The  importance  of  the  Hexaemeron  of  Ambrose  lies  in  the 
fact  that  it,  even  more  than  the  translation  by  Eustathius,  intro- 
duced the  ideas  of  Basil  to  the  western  church.  As  an  indepen- 
dent work  the  Hexaemeron  has  little  value.  In  the  portion  dealing 
with  the  six  days  proper,  Ambrose  is  almost  entirely  dependent 
upon  Basil,  with  a  few  reminiscences  of  Philo.^  Ambrose  adds 
in  the  last  of  his  homilies  matter  concerning  the  human  body, 

'He  quotes  the  Timaens  fully  30  times  (see  Reichardt's  index).  Most  of  the 
citations  are  of  well-known  passages  like  29E,  30A  and  41B.  The  Platonic  statement 
that  the  stars  are  composed  mostly  of  fire  is  mentioned  with  approval;  cf.  189,  25  ff.; 
186,  3;  118,  13;  120,  7.  The  statement  that  love  came  to  exist  because  woman  was 
made  of  Adam's  rib  (272,  12)  seems  to  be  a  reminiscence  of  the  Symposium  myth. 
The  definition  of  philosophy  {Theaet.  176B)  is  quoted  with  approval,  242,  11.  On 
the  other  hand  he  says  that  elsewhere  he  has  attempted  to  refute  the  doctrine  of 
a.vdfi.vii<ns  in  Proclus  and  Plato  (288,  5). 

'E.g.,  the  discussion  of  the  term  "beginning,"  Philop.  7,  8  ff.,  Basil  16A,  Ar. 
Mel.  iv,  i;  the  definition  of  privation,  69,  6  ff.  (esp.  71,  22),  Ar.  Met.  iv,  22;  the 
discussion  of  the  first-made  light,  supra,  p.  46;  the  theory  of  the  elements,  supra, 
p.  13;  cf.  also  277,  26  ff.,  and  Ar.  De.  an.  412a,  15  ff. 

3  Aiming  to  show  that  Moses'  description  of  the  world  was  in  accord  with  Greek 
science. 

*  For  saying  that  the  angels  are  circumscribed  in  space  (35,  15  ff.)  and  were 
made  with  the  material  world  (16,  15  ff.);  for  caUing  the  darkness  in  Gen.  1:2  an 
entity  (84  ff.);  and  for  disbelieving  in  the  sphericity  of  the  earth  (125,  19  ff.). 

5  Cohn-Wendland  Phil.  Al.  Opera,  I,  Ixiii,  cite  two  passages  of  the  Hexaemeron 
as  showing  Philonic  influence  (166C  ff.;  cf.  De.  op.  m.  14,  12  ff.;  225C  ff.;  cf.  De.  op. 
m.  21,  5  ff.);  cf.  however  Basil  96AB,  169A  ff.;  in  the  first  case  there  is  surely  Basilian 
influence.  For  Philonic  influence  on  Ambrose  see  Cohn-Wendland  op.  cit.,  Ixii  ff., 
Ixxxx  ff. 


THE    FOLLOWERS    OF    BASIL  59 

showing  that  it  was  admirably  contrived  by  God  to  meet  the  needs 
of  man.     The  sources  of  this  part  of  the  work  still  remain  obscure.' 

Ambrose  strenuously  opposes  the  theory  that  there  was  an 
ideal  pattern  of  the  world  outside  of  the  will  of  God,  who,  he 
says  (124B),  made  the  world  non  idea  qiiadam  duce.  Unlike 
Basil  he  says  that  *'in  the  beginning''  may  mean  "in  Christ"  as 
well  as  the  things  suggested  by  Basil  (129C,  130A).  This  thought 
has  previously  been  noted  in  connection  with  Theophilus  and 
Origen.  Ambrose  is  the  first  to  bring  into  the  Hexaemeral  tradi- 
tion the  notion  that  creation  took  place  in  the  spring.^  He  made 
use  of  stories  about  animals  such  as  are  found  in  Basil,  both  draw- 
ing from  the  latter  and  making  some  additions  of  his  own,  to  such 
an  extent  that  in  the  Middle  Ages  he  sometimes  was  called  the 
author  of  the  Physiologus. 

The  tendency  in  the  school  of  Theodorus  was  in  general  to 
lay  stress  upon  less  important  and  even  fantastic  questions  sug- 
gested by  the  biblical  text  and  upon  the  discussion  of  the  angelic 
hierarchies,  and  as  a  result  their  work  has  much  less  significance 
than  that  of  the  great  Cappadocian  trio.  Nevertheless,  Pro- 
copius  and  the  Byzantine  chroniclers  borrowed  from  Theodoretus 
and  Severianus,  though  to  a  less  extent  than  from  Basil  and  Gregory, 
and  these,  with  occasional  citations  of  Chrysostom  and  John  of 
Damascus,  furnish  the  later  period  Avith  most  of  its  material. 
After  Procopius  the  Hexaemeral  writers  showed  little  originality 
and  their  work  was  mere  compilation  from  the  sources  indicated. 

The  distinctively  new  feature  of  the  exegesis  of  Theodorus  and 
his  followers  is  the  contention  that  the  world  is  not  spherical, 

■  G.  Gossel  {Quibus  ex  foniibus  Ambrosius  in  describcndo  cor  pore  humano  hauseril, 
Leipzig,  1908)  shows  that  some  of  .Ambrose's  material  came  from  Cialcn  and  Apuleius 
{De  dogmate  Plaionis).  There  remains  a  large  amount  of  matter  similar  to  that 
discussed  in  the  thesis  of  S.  O.  Dickerman,  the  source  of  which  cannot  be  definitely 
determined. 

'  In  Pascha  Domini  (128C).  Cf.  Beda  Hex.  21B;  Honorius  Hex.  256D;  Giraldus 
Camb.  346;  Hrabanus  452B;  Conches  De  phil.  m.  SjA;  Peter  Comcstor  1059C. 
Conches  says  that  this  was  the  opinion  of  the  Hebrews  and  the  Latins,  but  that  the 
Egyptians  thought  that  creation  came  in  July.  Vergil  Georg.  ii,  336  B.  expresses  the 
idea  and  is  cited  by  Conches.  The  notion  can  be  traced  to  .Annijinus  (cited  by  S\Ticel- 
lus  597,  10;  I,  6fiF.;  4,  19  ff.)  who  placed  creation  on  March  25.  Peter  Comcstor 
tells  us  that  some  thought  creation  came  in  the  fall,  because  the  trees  are  spoken  of 
as  bearing  fruit. 


60  THE  HEXAEMERAL  LITERATURE 

but  oblong  and  flat  in  shape.  While  this  is  new  to  the  Hexaemera, 
it  was  certainly  earher  in  origin  and  was  doubtless  part  of  the 
belief  of  many  of  the  less  educated  Christians  of  the  time.  Back 
of  it  lies  the  very  ancient  symbolical  interpretation  of  the  descrip- 
tion of  the  Tabernacle  in  Exod.  25  fif.'  In  a  passage  of  Philo 
{De  uita  Mosis  II,  221  ff.,  Cohn-Wendland)  the  description  of  the 
Tabernacle  is  allegorized  in  this  manner.^  He  states  that  the 
hangings  typify  the  four  elements  and  the  Cherubim  symbolize 
the  two  hemispheres;  he  does  not,  however,  give  evidence  that 
he  believed  the  earth  not  to  be  spherical,  but  rather  the  opposite. 
From  this  and  apparently  from  other  Hebrew  sources  this  sym- 
boUsm  passed  into  Christian  literature.^  The  literal  belief  that 
the  universe  is  shaped  like  the  Tabernacle  seems  to  have  been 
based  upon  this  notion  inherited  from  the  Hebrews  together  with 
the  passages  in  Heb.,  chap.  8,  and  9:23  ff.  Among  the  writers 
under  consideration  Cosmas  gives  the  most  complete  account  of 
this  belief. 

Cosmas  states  that  the  earth  is  oblong  in  shape  and  founded 
upon  its  own  stabiUty,''  while  the  heavens  are  bent  in  a  lofty 
vault  to  meet  the  earth  upon  its  longer  sides;  on  the  shorter  sides 
the  enclosure  is  completed  by  walls.  All  this  is  typified  by  the 
table  in  the  Tabernacle,  which  was  two  cubits  long  and  one  cubit 
broad;  proportionately,  according  to  the  reckoning  of  Cosmas 
(138),  the  earth  measures  12,000  miles  from  east  to  west  and 
6,000  miles  from  north  to  south.  The  firmament,  which  was 
made  out  of  the  waters,  divides  the  world,  Hke  a  house,  into  two 
stories  (129,  130).  The  northern  and  western  parts  of  the  earth 
are  very  high  and  the  south  is  correspondingly  depressed  (133). 
The  sun  issues  from  the  east,  and  passing  through  the  south, 
ascends  northward  (134),  causing   the   shadow  of  night  by  the 

'  Cf.  A.  H.  McNeile,  The  Book  of  Exodus  (Westminster  Commentaries,  London, 
1908),  xcii. 

^  Hence  Josephus  {Ant.  lud.  Ill,  182,  183,  and  Bell.  Iiid.  V,  212,  217,  cited  by 
Cohn-Wendland)  drew. 

3  See  Cohn-Wendland 's  citations  of  Clem.  AJ.  Strom.  V,  6  and  Origen  in  Exod. 
Horn.  XIII,  3,  which  contain  matter  apparently  taken  from  Philo  together  with  other 
material. 

'•  With  Basil  {supra,  p.  48)  he  shows  that  the  earth  cannot  rest  upon  a  material 
foundation  but  is  upheld  by  God  (128-29). 


THE    FOLLOWERS   OF    BASIL  6l 

interposition  of  the  northern  mountains.'  The  waved  moldings 
on  the  table  represent  the  ocean  passing  around  the  inhabited 
world,  and  the  rim  outside  is  the  land  beyond  the  ocean  where 
earth  and  heaven  meet  and  where  Paradise  is  located  (135).  The 
inner  part  of  the  Tabernacle  represents  heaven  and  the  outer 
court  the  earth  (163-64).  The  remainder  of  this  unscientific 
theory  may  be  omitted. 

A  similar  view  of  the  shape  of  the  earth  was  entertained  by 
Diodorus,*  probably  by  Theodorus,  his  pupil,^  and  certainly  by 
Severianus/  nor  were  they  by  any  means  alone  in  believing  that 
the  earth  is  fiat.^  Naturally  the  same  writers  disbelieved  in  the 
existence  of  Antipodes,^  nor  it  is  surprising  that  Severianus  (454) 
should  believe  Hterally  Ps.  32:7  (in  the  LXX),  that  the  clouds  are 
bags,  and  that  God  causes  rain  by  pressing  them. 

Severianus  and  Theodoretus  introduced  two  other  topics  that 
were  much  discussed  in  this  period,  the  questions  when  the  angels 
were  created  and  why  Moses  did  not  mention  them.  It  has  been 
seen  {supra,  p.  25)  that  the  writer  of  Jubilees  asked  the  same 
question,  and  that  Jubilees  directly  affected  some  of  the  Byzantine 
writers;  the  same  motive  that  led  to  the  recognition  of  the  question 
in  Jubilees — to  reconcile  with  Genesis  such  passages  as  Job  38:7 — 
operated  here  as  well,  as   Cosmas   shows  by  citing  Job  (167).^ 

■  Cf.  Eth.  Enoch  72:5  (tr.  R.  H.  Charles):  "The  chariots  in  which  he  [sc.  the  sunl 
ascends  are  driven  by  the  wind,  and  the  sun  disappears  from  the  heaven  as  he  sets 
and  returns  through  the  north  in  order  to  reach  the  east,"  etc.     Cf.  Severianus  452  ff. 

'  Cf.  Against  Fatalism  ap.  Phot.  cod.  223  (p.  2206  Bekk.). 

3  Philoponus  132,  7,  says  that  he  thought  the  world  was  shaped  like  a  cylinder; 
cf.  Philop.  125,  19  ff. 

■•He  declares  that  the  earth  is  not  round  (452,  citing  Isa.  40:22;  Gen.  19:^3; 
Ps.  18:7;  Matt.  24:31);  this  is  followed  by  Procopius  40B  ff.  His  description  of 
the  sun's  course,  452  ff.,  is  like  that  of  Cosmas. 

s  Cosmas  330  cites  Philo  Carpalhius  in  confirmation  of  his  own  \-iew.  but  from 
the  evidence  it  is  difficult  to  tell  upon  what  grounds.  Lactantius  Inst.  Ill,  24,  con- 
tests the  sphericity  of  the  earth,  and  .\ethicus  III,  i  says  that  the  sun  returns  to  the 
east  through  the  south  veiled  in  a  cloud. 

^Cosmas  120,  157;  Procopius  69B;  Lactantius /or.  nV.;  Augustine  ZX7D  XV'1 ,  9 ; 
Beda  De  temparum  rationc  XXXI \';  Dreyer,  Planetary  Systems,  Cambridge,  1906, 
chap.  X  (citations). 

7  Cf.  also  Bas.  Scleuc.  7,2.\  (quoting  Job);  Zonaras  13,  3  (citing  Jubilees);  Milton. 
P.L.  Vn,  252:  "Thus  was  the  first  day  even  and  mom;  Nor  passed  uncelebrated 
nor  unsung  By  the  celestial  quires." 


62  THE  HEXAEMERAL  LITERATURE 

Basil,  followed  by  many  of  the  Fathers,  believed  that  the  angels 
existed  before  the  universe;  Theodorus,  with  Procopius,  Theo- 
doretus  and  Cosmas,  held  that  they  were  made  with  the  world 
and  were  a  part  of  it  {supra,  p.  45).  Moses  did  not  mention 
them,  however,  as  Severianus  (431)  says,  because  in  that  case  the 
Israelites,  fresh  from  heathen  Egypt,  might  have  worshiped  them; 
and  this  they  would  have  been  the  more  likely  to  do,  Theodoretus 
says  (80A,  quoted  by  Glyca,  145  ed.  Bekk.),  since  they  actually 
did  bow  down  to  images  of  animals.'  Other  topics  concerning 
the  angels  are  discussed — e.g.,  the  angels  as  guardians;^  the 
Dionysian  orders;^  the  notion  that  God's  commands  in  Genesis 
were  issued  for  the  instruction  of  the  angels."*  Theodorus  and 
Cosmas  thought  that  the  angels  were  circumscribed  in  space^ 
and  that  they  moved  the  stars. ^ 

In  the  details  of  interpretation  most  of  the  writers  agreed 
with  Basil  upon  many  points,'^  though  in  a  few  they  held  different 
views^  or  even  actively  opposed  him  {supra,  pp.  45,  48). 

'  lobius  ap.  Phot.  cod.  222  also  discusses  the  question;  he  adds  the  explanation 
that  Moses  wrote  only  for  the  direct  instruction  of  men  in  this  material  world  and  that 
the  mention  of  the  angels  was  not  necessary  for  his  purpose. 

^  Cosmas  157;  Theod.  of  Mopsuestia  Com.  in  Zach.  521B;  Philop.  21,  3;  252,  23; 
255,  20;   262,  17;  Glyca  165B. 

3  Glyca  161 B  ff.  "  Theodoretus  I,  9;  Procopius  48D. 

5  Theodorus  ap.  Philop.  34,  7  (who  dissents);   Cosmas  157. 

'  Theodorus  ap.  Philop.  28,  20;   Cosmas  150. 

'Cf.  notes  on  Basil  supra.  Some  of  the  points  of  agreement  are:  the  discussion 
of  the  meanings  of  beginning;  the  explanation  of  ddparos  in  Gen.  1:2  as  referring  to 
the  covering  of  the  earth  with  water;  that  the  darkness  (ibid.)  comes  from  the  inter- 
position of  heaven,  and  that  darkness  is  not  an  evil  principle,  but  the  absence  of  light; 
the  theory  of  the  first- made  light;  the  metaphor  of  a  brooding  bird  as  applied  to  the 
spirit  in  Gen.  1:2;  the  cooling  function  of  the  upper  waters;  the  notion  that  God's 
commands  make  the  water  fluid,  created  the  basin  of  the  sea,  and  gave  reproductive 
powers  to  plants  and  animals;  that  poisonous  herbs  are  useful  as  food  to  certain 
birds  and  animals;  the  polemic  against  astrology;  the  claim  that  "Let  us  make" 
implies  the  Trinity. 

«  As  in  the  West,  they  tended  to  call  the  firmament  a  hard  substance  made  out 
of  the  waters;  infra,  p.  81.  Some  held  that  the  spirit  in  Gen.  1:2  was  merely  air; 
Theodoretus  I,  8;  Procopius  45C;  Gennadius  1628B;  Severianus  436;  Diodorus 
1563C;  cf.  Basil  44A,  Philoponus  13,  15;  Anastasius  869D.  There  was  opposition 
to  Basil 's  view  of  II  Cor.  12:2  that  Paul  was  snatched  up  to  the  upper  heaven  where 
God  dwells.  Cosmas  276  says  that  Paul  was  taken  to  the  firmament,  and  Procopius 
68B  says  that  he  went  to  Paradise,  i.e.,  on  the  earth. 


THE    FOLLOWERS   OF    BASIL  63 

Most  of  them  believed,  like  Basil,  thai  "heaven  and  earth"  in 
Gen.  I :  i  included  all  the  elements  and  that  nothing  was  made 
ex  nihilo  after  the  first  day.'  The  topic  of  the  pattern  world  of 
ideas  is  ignored.  The  waters  above  the  firmament  are  said  to 
reflect  downward  the  light  of  the  luminaries  and  to  prevent  its 
dissolution  upward/  and  to  prevent  the  melting  of  the  firmament.^ 
Other  topics  introduced  in  the  later  commentaries  are  some  of 
them  questions  based  on  the  scriptural  phraseology — why  God 
did  not  bless  the  stars  (Severianus  460)  or  the  plants  (Theodorus 
I,  17),  and  why  he  did  bless  the  seventh  day  {ibid.  I,  21);  some  are 
pedantic  discussions  of  minutiae — the  determination  of  the  exact 
phase  of  the  moon  at  its  creation  (Severianus  449) ,  and  the  question 
whether  day  or  night  came  first  in  the  days  of  creation  (Procopius 
53A  ff.).     These  topics  often  enter  the  realm  of  the  fantastic." 

*  Severianus  433;  Procopius  40A;  Cosmas  167  says  that  God  made  light  and  the 
human  soul  out  of  nothing  after  the  first  day  and  in  the  presence  of  the  angels. 

*  Severianus  450;  Cosmas  322  ff.;  Procopius  72D. 
3  Cosmas  loc.  cit.;  Procopius  72C. 

*  E.g.,  the  introduction  of  etymologies;  the  statement  that  the  Hebrew  words 
for  "man"  and  "  fire"  are  the  same  and  discussion  of  the  symbolism  of  the  fact  (Severi- 
anus 473;   Glyca  1S7D);   the  acrostic  on  the  name  of  Adam  {supra,  p.  27). 


CHAPTER  VI 

AUGUSTINE 

Augustine,  bishop  of  Hippo,  was  the  second  of  the  great  inno- 
vators of  the  Hexaemeral  tradition  and  the  chief  authority  of  the 
mediaeval  Latin  writers  on  creation/  He  produced  an  interpre- 
tation unique  in  its  self-consistency,  depending  upon  the  funda- 
mental principles  of  a  transcendent  God,  an  eternal  ideal  world, 
and  a  systematic  allegorical  explanation  of  the  six  days  as  some- 
thing other  than  natural  days.  With  him  the  physical  aspect  of 
creation  is  secondary  to  the  metaphysical  and  theistic;  and  the 
result  is  that  despite  its  ingenuity  and  philosophical  consistency 
his  exegesis  as  such  deserves  the  criticism  passed  upon  it  by  Suarez : 
"uerisimile  non  est  Deum  inspirasse  Moysi,  ut  historiam  de  crea- 
tione  mundi  ad  fidem  totius  populi  ideo  necessariam  per  nomina 
dierum  expUcaret  quorum  significatio  uix  inueniri  et  difhcillime 
ab  ahquo  credi  posset"  {Tract,  de  op.  sex  dierum  I,  ii,  42). 

The  metaphysical  nature  of  Augustine's  works  on  Genesis 
follows  directly  as  the  result  of  his  acquaintance  with  Plato,^  and, 

■  Of  his  works  on  Genesis,  De  Genesi  ad  Litteratn  (cited  as  Lit.)  is  the  most  impor- 
tant and  exercised  the  most  influence  on  the  Hexaemera.  The  passages  in  the  Con- 
fessiones  (XI  ff.)  dealing  with  the  transcendence  of  God  and  the  interpretation  of  Gen. 
1:1-2  are  very  important.  The  Imperfeckis  Liber  amd  the  De  Genesi  contra  Mani- 
chaeos  were  earher  than  the  above,  and  were  largely  superseded  by  them.  De  Ciuitate 
Dei  contains  some  remarks  on  the  interpretation  of  Genesis.  For  discussions  of  the 
philosophy  of  Augustine,  see  Nourisson,  La  philosophie  de  St.  Augustin,  1866;  Storz, 
Die  Philosophie  des  hi.  Augustinus,  Freiburg,  1882;  G.  Loesche,  De  Augustino  Plotini- 
zanie,  Jena,  1880;  L.  Grandgeorge,  Saint  Augustin  et  le  neo-Platonisme,  Paris,  1896. 

'  According  to  Saisset,  he  kilew  the  Phaedrus,  Phaedo,  Republic,  Gorgias,  and 
Timaeus,  to  which  Nourisson  (II,  103,  107)  adds  the  Symposium.  The  number  of 
citations  of  the  Timaeus  show  that  he  knew  that  dialogue  best.  He  cites  with  approval 
Tim.  31B  and  32B  as  agreeing  with  Gen.  i :  i,  DCD  VIII,  11;  and  ibid.  XI,  21  he  says 
that  neither  in  Genesis  nor  in  Tim.  37C  does  the  joy  of  the  creator  imply  that  he 
acquired  new  information.  On  the  other  hand  he  will  not  admit  that  the  angels 
(the  Platonic  gods)  created  the  mortal  parts  of  man  {DCD  XII,  25,  27;  Tim.  41B  ff.). 
For  his  conclusion  on  the  subject  of  Plato 's  acquaintance  with  the  Bible,  supra,  p.  1 2. 
Augustine  probably  knew  Plato  only  in  translation;  he  was  not  a  good  Greek  scholar 
and  seems  not  to  have  used  Greek  texts  to  any  extent  (see  S.  Angus,  The  Sources  of 
the  First  Ten  Books^of  Augustine'' s  "De  Ciuitate  Dei,"  Princeton,  1906,  pp.  240-42). 

64 


AUGUSTINE  65 

even  more,  the  neo-PIatonists  {supra,  pp.  19  ff.).  His  knowledge  of 
Aristotle  was  scant. 

It  has  been  shown  above  (p.  20)  that  Augustine's  conception 
of  God  was  to  a  certain  extent  neo-Platonic,  in  that  he  represents 
the  creator  as  out  of  time  and  space  in  a  state  of  transcendent 
tranquillity,  working  in  and  through  the  Word,  wherein  the  ideas  or 
forms  of  all  things  were  eternally  present  as  the  thoughts  of  God.' 

With  this  hypothesis  of  an  eternal,  unchangeable  God,  whose 
purposes  and  ideas  are  ever  fixed,  Augustine  is  forced  to  meet 
certain  fundamental  difficulties.  In  the  first  place,  how  can  God, 
who  does  not  change  or  move  in  either  time  or  place,  deal  with 
the  material  world  ?  This  difficulty  he  solves,  or  evades,  by  a 
series  of  subordinations.  The  two  modes  of  existence,  exclusive 
of  deity,  are  corporalis  and  spiritualis,  the  former  moving  in  both 
time  and  space,  the  latter  only  in  time  {Lit.  VIII,  20,  39);  and  of 
the  latter  some  creatures  have  free  will  and  some  do  not.  God. 
moving  in  neither  time  nor  space,  communicates  inwardly,  in  a 
manner  consistent  with  his  own  nature,  with  the  spiritual  creatures 
which  have  free  wills,  and  the  lower  natures  are  subject  to  them, 
while  all  things  are  primarily  subject  to  God  {ibid.  23,  44;  25,  47).^ 

The  second  question,  stated  in  Conf.  XI,  10,  is  a  dilemma — 
how  can  the  purpose  to  create  arise  in  God,  in  consistency  with 
his  immutability?  and  if  the  purpose  to  create  was  eternally 
with  God,  is  not  creation  coeternal  with  God  ?  Augustine  admits 
that  the  things  which  were  created  "in  the  beginning,"  which  he 
takes  to  mean  "in  the  Word  or  Wisdom,"  are  eternal  in  the  sense 
that  they  precede  all  in  time  {Conf.  XII,  15,  20);  still  the  eternity 
of  God  is  before  them^  preceding  creation  not  by  passing  time  but 
by  unmoving  eternity.'' 

^  Lit.  IV,  24,  41:  ....  in  ipso  uerbo  ....  in  quo  sunt  omnium,  etiam  quae 
temporaliler  facta  sunt,  adcrnac  rationes,  etc.;  ibid.  V,  15:  haec  omnia,  priusquam 
ficrent,  erant  in  nolitia  facientis,  et  utique  ibi  meliora,  ubi  ueriora,  ubi  atterna  et  incom- 
mutabilia.     Storz  1Q3  ff. 

'  Cf.  Vincent  of  Beauvais  Spec.  hist.  I,  6. 

J  Conf.  XII,  IS,  20:  etsi  non  inucnimus  tempus  ante  illam,  quia  et  creaturam  tern- 
poris  antccedit,  quae  prior  omnium  crcata  est,  ante  illam  tamen  est  ipsius  creatoris  aeter- 
nitas,  a  quo  facta  sumpsit  exordium,  quamuis  non  tcmporis  quia  nondum  crai  tempos, 
ipsius  tamen  conditionis  suae. 

*  DCD  XII,  16:  quapropter  si  deus  semper  dominus  fuit.  semper  habuil  creaturam 
suo  dominatui  seruientem  ....  crat  quippc  ante  illam,  quamuis  nidlo  tempore  sine 
ilia,  non  cam  spatio  transcurrcnte  sed  manenle  perpetuitate  praecedcns. 


66  THE  HEXAEMERAL  LITERATURE 

This  answer  depends  upon  the  principle  of  God's  transcen- 
dence, but  the  questions  which  were  sometimes  asked,  what  God 
did  before  creation,  and  why  creation  came  so  late,  could  be 
answered  by  the  simple  distinction  of  time  and  eternity  {supra, 
p.  7).  If  there  was  no  time  before  creation,  how  can  we  ask 
what  God  did  then  ?  There  was  no  "  then,"  if  there  was  no  time.' 
The  question  why  creation  came  so  late  is  answered  by  saying 
that  if  it  had  come  any  earHer,  infinite  time  would  still  have  pre- 
ceded it,  and  finally,  that  time  is  existent  not  per  se  but  only 
relatively  to  creation  and  by  God's  will  {DCD  XI,  4-6;  cf.  Conf. 
VII,  5,  15  and  XI,  13).^ 

The  Augustinian  doctrines  founded  on  the  transcendence  of 
God  had  great  influence  on  the  scholars  of  the  Middle  Ages,  though 
none  perhaps  was  as  consistent  throughout  as  Augustine.  They 
quote  him  with  reference  to  God's  manner  of  working,  and  employ 
similarly  the  principle  of  transcendence  to  show  that  creation  is 
not  coeternal  with  God  even  though  he  eternally  willed  to  create.' 

Augustine  with  Plato  says  that  God's  reason  for  creating  was  his 
goodness ,''  or  in  the  last  analysis  his  will,  and  there  is  nothing  higher 
than  God's  wilL^     Being  self-sufhcient,  he  did  not  need  to  create.^ 

'  Conf.  XI,  13;  ibid.  12  he  says  that  he  will  not  make  the  jocular  answer  that 
God  was  making  a  hell  for  those  that  seek  into  mysteries  (referred  to  by  DuBartas, 
Sylvester  3).  Cf.  also  DCD  XI,  5;  Man.  I,  3,  and  the  reminiscence  in  Hugo  of 
Amiens  11;   Grandgeorge  79  ff. 

==  The  question  was  proposed  by  Parmenides  fr.  8,  9-10,  Diels,  and  Lucretius  v, 
168-69;  cf.  Bruno  1566;  Arnold  of  Chartres  15150  ff.;  Milton  P.L.  VII,  90:  "What 
cause  moved  the  creator,  in  his  holy  rest  Through  all  eternity,  so  late  to  build 
In  chaos?" 

3  Hugo  of  Amiens  i25iCff.,  in  answer  to  the  questions  what  God  did  before 
creation  and  how  a  new  desire  can  arise  in  him,  says :  ea  ipsa  non  tempore  sed  aeterni- 
tate  praecedit  {sc.  dens),  and  again,  uerba  nostra  ....  non  actionem  uel  passionem, 
non  quamlihet  uarietatem  ponunt  in  ipsam  deilatcm.  Honorius,  Eliicid.  1112B:  unde 
deus  dicitur  non  esse  antiquior  sua  creatione  tempore  sed  digniiate.  Cf .  Angelomus  1 14A; 
Vincent  of  Beauvais  Spec.  hist.  1,  8;  Bruno  156B.  Similar  is  the  thought  of  Peter 
Lombard  II,  i,  2,  that  when  we  say  God  makes  anything  we  understand  non  aliquem 
in  operando  motum  illi  inesse  ....  sed  eiiis  sempiternae  uoluntatis  nouum  .... 
effectum;  and  Albertus  Magnus,  IV,  73,  3:  ab  aeterno  dixit  lit  fiat,  non  ab  acterno,  sed 
tunc  quando  incepit.    This  is  borrowed  by  Raleigh,  Pref .  xlviii. 

1  DCD  XI,  21  (citing  Tim.  29E);  Lit.  I,  5,  11;  Storz  192. 

s  Man.  I,  2,  4. 

^  Lit.  I,  s,  11;  the  neo-Platonists  held  that  God,  being  self-sufficient,  did  not 
need  to  create,  but  did  so  as  a  natural  and  necessary  act. 


AUGUSTINE  67 

In  treating  of  the  creative  work  of  God,  Augustine  rejects  the 
ordinary  belief  that  the  world  was  created  in  six  natural  days 
{Lit.  IV,  18,  33)  and  makes  the  fundamental  assumption  that  it 
was  one  act,  in  accordance  with  Gen.  2:4  {Lit.  V,  3,  5).  In  the 
beginning,  that  is,  in  Wisdom  and  before  time,  God  made  out  of 
nothing  {Man.  I,  6)  heaven  and  earth,  respectively  the  angels 
and  matter  wholly  without  form.'  Formless  matter  is  prior  in 
origin  only,  and  not  by  an  interval  of  time,  to  formed  matter,  and 
therefore  never  existed  as  such  in  this  world. ^  The  relation  of 
the  two  is  illustrated  by  the  example  of  sound  and  song  or  speech; 
sound  is  not  made  first  and  then  formed  into  speech,  but  is  pro- 
duced already  formed.^  The  universe  thus  made  by  God  had 
in  itself,  just  as  the  seed  potentially  contains  the  tree,  not  only 
heaven,  earth,  and  the  maxima  mundi  membra,  but  also  whatever 
these  have  produced,  before  they  arose  in  periods  of  time  into  the 
form  wherein  they  now  exist  {Lit.  V,  23,  45).  This  was  brought 
about  by  the  fact  that  in  the  beginning  God  placed  forms  {ratioties) 
in  the  universe  which  later  produce  things  in  their  genera  as  we 
know  them.''  The  likeness  of  this  theory  to  that  of  the  seminal 
logoi  has  been  noticed  above  (p.  t6),  and  it  will  be  obser\'ed  that 
Augustine's  rationes  are  of  a  dynamic  character.  He  can  therefore 
name  four  modes  of  existence — ^in  the  Word,  where  things  are 
eternal,  not  made;  in  the  elements  of  the  world,  wherein  all  things 
were  made  at  once;   in  things  which  were  created  in  accordance 

'  Conf.  XII,  12,  15:  duo  reperio  quae  fectsti  carentia  lemporibus,  cum  tibi  nculrum 
coaelernum  sit;  unum,  quod  ila  formatum  est  ut  sine  ullo  dcfectu  cotitempldlionis,  sine 
ullo  inleruallo  mutationis,  quamuis  mutabile,  tamen  non  mutatum  aeternitate  alque 
incommutabilitate  perfruatur;  allerum,  quod  ita  informe  crat  ut  ex  qua  forma  in  quam 
formam  tiel  motionis  uel  slationis  mutaretur,  quo  tempori  subdcrelur,  non  liaberct. 

'  Conf.  XII,  29,  40:  hoc  exemplo  qui  potest  intcllegat  materiam  rcrum  prinu)  factam 
el  appellaUim  caelum  el  lerram,  quia  itide  facta  sunt  caelum  et  terra,  nee  tempore  prima 
factam,  quia  formae  rerum  exserunt  tempora,  ilia  autem  eral  informis  iamquc  in  lem- 
poribus simul  animaduertitur,  nee  tamen  de  ilia  narrari  aliqnid  potest,  nisi  uflui  tempore 
prior  sit,  etc.  Storz  220.  For  the  similar  neo-Platonic  view  cf.  Plot.  Enn.  IV.  3,  9 
{supra,  p.  16,  n.  5).     Raleigh  I,  i,  4  cites  Augustine's  view. 

^Conf.  loc.  cit.;  Lit.  I,  15,  29;  the  figure  is  imitated  in  the  Middle  .Ages;  cf. 
.\ngelomus  114B. 

*  Lit.  IV^  ly.  ....  deus  cotuiidil  omnia,  quoniam  per  illam  sunt  cottdiia;  ui  hoc 
quod  nunc  uidemus  tcmporalibus  inleruallis  ea  moueri  ad  pcragenda  quae  suo  cuique 
generi  competunt,  ex  illis  insitis  rationibus  uenial,  lamquam  seminaliter  sparsit  deus 
n  ictu  condendi "     Storz  200. 


68  THE  HEXAEMERAL  LITERATURE 

with  these  causes,  not  at  once,  but  each  in  its  own  time;  and  finally 
potential  existence  in  seeds  {Lit.  VI,  lo). 

The  rejection  of  the  ordinary  view  that  the  six  days  are  real 
periods  of  time  caused  Augustine  to  devise  the  theory  outlined 
above  (pp.  21  f.),  aside  from  which  interpretation  the  days  of 
creation  have  no  meaning  to  him.  There  are  not  six  different 
days,  but  the  first  day  is  repeated — that  is,  the  process  of  action 
of  the  first  day  is  repeated,  and  the  succession  of  events  in  the 
Genesis  narrative  is  the  succession  as  presented  to  the  knowledge 
of  the  angels  and  not  a  temporal  series  of  separate  creations  {Lit. 
IV,  35,  56);  the  story  of  creation  is  told  in  the  scriptural  form  for 
the  benefit  of  those  who  would  not  be  able  to  understand  the  true 
account  {ibid.  IV,  33,  52;  V,  3,  6).' 

On  the  remaining  points  of  interpretation  Augustine  is  not  so 
far  removed  from  the  other  writers.  The  first-made  chaos  con- 
tained all  the  elements.''  The  explanation  of  Gen.  1:2  (cf.  Man. 
I,  3;  Lib.  imp.  4,  11)  is  much  like  Basil's,  and  like  Basil  {Hex.  40C) 
he  explained  the  darkness  as  absence  of  light,  and  not,  as  the 
Manichaeans  claimed,  an  entity  {Man.  I,  4;  ConJ.  XII,  3).  The 
waters  over  which  the  spirit  of  God  moved  are  chaotic  matter, 
over  which  God's  mind,  like  that  of  an  artisan  planning  his  work, 
moved,  but  not  in  a  spatial  sense.^  Augustine  preferred  to  under- 
stand "light"  in  Gen.  1 13  in  the  special  sense  that  has  been  men- 
tioned, that  is,  as  referring  to  the  angels;  but  he  allows  that  the 
view  that  it  is  ordinary  light  may  be  correct.  In  case  it  is  spiritual 
light,  the  division  of  light  and  darkness  (Gen.  1:4)  is  the  division 

'  Cf.  Milton  P.L.  VII,  176:  "Immediate  are  the  acts  of  God,  more  swift  Than 
time  or  motion,  but  to  human  ears  Cannot  without  process  of  speech  be  told. "  Peter 
Lombard  II,  15,  5. 

*  Lit.  Ill,  3,  5.  He  neither  explains  the  interchange  of  the  elements  nor  denies 
that  they  interchange,  although  he  says  that  both  views  are  held  {ihid.  Ill,  3,  4). 
Most  of  the  mediaeval  commentators  held  that  "earth"  in  Gen.  1:1  meant  the  four 
elements. 

3  Man.  I,  s  and  7;  Lib.  imp.  4,  16;  Lit.  I,  5,  11.  This  was  a  very  famous  com- 
parison; reminiscences  occur  in  Beda  Hex.  16A;  Remi  55B;  Neckam  I,  2;  Hugo  of 
St.  Victor  36A;  Hrabanus447A;  Strabus7oB;  Angelomus  116A;  Eucherius, /«5/n<d. 
67,  18  (Wotke);  Bruno  148C;  Peter  Comestor  1057A.  In  Lit.  I,  18,  36  the  version 
fovebat  for  superferebatur  is  mentioned,  as  in  Basil  {supra,  p.  48).  Cf.  also  Lib. 
imp.  4,  17  (p.  9,  n.  I,  supra). 


AUGUSTINE  69 

of  things  formed  and  unformed  or  the  division  of  the  good  from 
the  bad  angels."  The  expression  "God  saw  that  it  was  good" 
does  not  imply,  as  the  Manichaeans  thought,  that  God  acquired 
knowledge,  but  simply  indicates  his  satisfaction  (Man.l,S;  Lib.  imp. 
5,  22;  Lit.  I,  8,  14).  This  later  was  a  common  topic  of  the  Hcxae- 
mera.  Throughout  his  Hexaemeral  works,  Augustine  expresses 
great  impatience  with  physical  science  and  a  feeling  that  it  is 
useless  to  discuss  such  questions.  He  therefore  refrains  from 
discussing  the  form  of  the  heavens,  agreeing  however  with  Basil 
that  Isa.  40:22  and  Ps.  103:2  describe  it  sufficiently,  and  that 
they  may  be  taken  to  mean  that  the  heavens  are  spherical  {Lil. 
II,  9,  20-21). 

The  firmament  is  so  called  not  because  it  stands  still  but  because 
of  its  firmness,  and  because  it  forms  an  impassable  boundary 
between  the  waters  {Lit.  II,  10,  23) ;  and  with  regard  to  the  upper 
waters  Augustine  made  the  often  quoted  statement:  "quoquo 
modo  autem  et  qualeslibet  aquae  ibi  sint,  esse  ibi  eas  minime 
dubitemus;  maior  est  quippe  scripturae  huius  auctoritas  quam 
omnis  humani  ingenii  capacitas"  (Lit.  II,  5,  9).'  The  suggestion 
that  the  upper  waters  might  exist  in  the  form  of  vapor  also  met 
with  favor.^  With  Basil,  Augustine  declared  that  the  upper 
waters  act  as  a  cooling  agent  against  the  heat  of  the  fires  of  heaven 
(Lit.  II,  5,  9). 

Gen.  1:8-9  ^re  taken  to  mean  that  then  the  earth  and  water 
received  their  present  form,  being  taken  out  of  the  confused  mass 
of  elements  (Man.  I,  12;  Lib.  imp.  10),  and  in  Lil.  I,  12,  26  the 
suggestion  is  made  that  previously  the  water  may  have  been  less 

'  Lit.  I,  17,  34;  DCD  XI,  19.  These  views  were  adopted  by  mediaeval  scholars; 
the  former  by  Beda  Com.  194B;  Angelomus  117;  the  latter  by  pseudo-Eucherius 
896D;  Angelomus  118A;  Peter  Lombard  II,  5,  2;  13,  2;  Bandinus  II,  13;  Neckam 
I,  3;   Rupert  of  Dcutz  I,  10;   cf.  Peter  Comestor  10S7C. 

'  Pseudo-Eucherius  897C;  Beda  Cow.  194D, //c.v.  19A;  Hrabanus  4S0A;  .Vbelard 
743D;  .\ngelomus  119A;  Rupert  of  DeuU  220B;  CI.  Marius  Victor  I,  77  ff-:  ^«" 
5//  tibi  credere  semper  Posse  deitm  quicquid  fieri  non  posse  putatur  (perhaps  with  reference 
to  Augustine). 

J  Lil.  II,  4,  8;  Hugo  of  St.  Victor  35A;  Honorius  De  im.  m.  I,  138;  Hex.  256B; 
Vincent  of  Beauvais  Spec.  hist.  I,  20;  Spec.  not.  I,  28;  Peter  Comestor  105SC;  cf. 
pseudo-Eucherius  lac.  cil.  and  .\ngclomus  118D. 


70  THE   HEXAEMERAL   LITERATURE 

dense  and  at  this  time  became  thickened.  This  theory  was  worked 
out  more  thoroughly  by  Beda  and  his  followers. 

With  regard  to  the  plants,  Augustine  says  that  the  existence 
of  harmful  and  poisonous  herbs  is  due  to  man's  sin  and  not  to  their 
creation  as  such  by  God  (Man.  I,  13;  Lit.  Ill,  18,  28;  supra,  p.  5). 
In  connection  with  the  discussion  of  the  stars,  he  introduces 
several  topics  which  have  been  met  with  before — the  importance 
of  the  sun  and  moon  {Lib.  imp.  13,  42);  the  varying  length  of  the 
year  of  several  of  the  planets,  and  the  "great  year"  of  Plato 
(ibid.  13,  38),  and  the  polemic  against  astrology  {Lit.  II,  17,  35; 
cf.  supra,  p.  52).  He  does  not  return  a  definite  answer  to  the 
question  whether  spirits  govern  and  infuse  the  stars  {Lit.  II,  18, 
38;  supra,  p.  32). 

The  subject  of  the  creation  of  the  birds  and  fish  gives  rise  to 
the  topic  already  seen  in  Philo  and  Basil  that  both  the  fish  and 
the  birds  swim  {supra,  p.  32,  n.  3),  and  in  addition,  explaining 
why  the  birds  were  created  out  of  the  water,  Augustine  shows  that 
they  are  able  to  fly  only  in  the  humid  air  which  is  closely  akin  to 
water  {Man.  I,  15;  Lib.  imp.  14,  44;  Lit.  Ill,  i,  i).'  He  does  not, 
like  Basil  and  Ambrose,  introduce  a  mass  of  detail  concerning  the 
life  of  the  birds  and  beasts,  illustrative  of  God's  providence  in 
their  creation,  nor  are  such  narratives  a  part  of  the  Hexaemera 
which  show  Augustinian  influence.  A  topic  introduced  by  him 
is  the  theory  that  animal  life  arising  from  the  decay  of  the  bodies 
of  other  animals  is  not  a  new  creation,  but  is  the  result  of  a  natural 
force  created  at  first.^ 

Man's  likeness  to  God  lies  in  his  mental  powers  and  is  not 
external,  and  it  is  because  of  this  excellence  that  his  creation  is 
given  separate  treatment  in  Genesis  {Lib.  imp.  16,  55;  Man.  I,  17; 
Lit.  Ill,  20,  30).  For  man,  as  for  the  angels,  creation  and  forma- 
tion is  the  recognition  of  God's  Word,  and  because  man  is  a  rational 
creature  both  the  formulas  et  sic  est  factum  and  et  fecit  deus  are 
omitted;  for  in  accordance  with  Augustine's  explanation,  they 
imply  that  an  irrational  thing  is  first  made  in  the  Word  and  recog- 

'  Reminiscences  occur  in  Hrabanus  456B;  Angelomus  121B;  Isid.  De  ord.  creat. 
VII,  3-4;  Erigena  740A;  Vincent  of  Beauvais  Spec.  hist.  I,  26;  Peter  Comestor 
1061C. 

^  Lit.  Ill,  14,  23;  cf.  Peter  Lombard  II,  15,  4. 


AUGUSTINE  71 

nizcd  by  the  angels,  and  then  is  made  in  its  own  nature  {Lit.  Ill, 
20,  31-32).  The  first  account  of  man's  creation,  in  Gen.  i,  refers 
to  his  invisible,  potential,  and  causal  creation  {Lit.  VI,  6,  10),  the 
ratio  creandi  hominis,  non  actio  creati  {ibid.  9,  16).  God  did  not 
fashion  Adam  with  hands  like  ours;  this  is  a  puerile  notion 
(ibid.  12,  20).  It  is  likely  that  at  the  time  of  his  creation 
Adam  was  fully  developed  {ibid.  18),'  and  inasmuch  as  provision 
was  made  for  his  food  {ibid.  21),  his  body  then  formed  was  immortal, 
not  in  the  sense  non  posse  mori,  but  in  the  sense  posse  non  mori.' 
The  ideas  that  man  lost  his  power  over  the  beasts  by  his  sin  {supra. 
p.  5)  and  that  man  in  contrast  with  the  beasts  stands  erect  {supra. 
p.  10)  are  topics  of  the  Hexaemera  before  Augustine.  Man's 
soul  is  incorporeal  and  immortal,  but  it  is  not  drawn  from  the 
divine  nature,  but  is  made  out  of  nothing.^  As  to  the  time  when 
it  was  created,  Augustine  will  not  make  any  definite  assertion, 
but  it  appears  to  him  most  probable  that  the  human  soul  and  the 
ratio  causalis  from  which  the  body  developed  at  the  proper  time 
were  created  when  God  made  all  things  together,  and  were  joined 
when  God  breathed  on  Adam's  face  {Lit.  VII,  24,  35).  Like 
Basil,  Augustine  concluded  from  the  use  of  the  plural  in  ''Let  us 
make"  that  the  Trinity  is  meant  {supra,  p.  52). 

The  general  character  of  Augustine's  conception  of  the  rest  of 
God  has  already  been  noted.  It  is  the  timeless  tranquillity  of  the 
creator;  but  explanation  had  to  be  made  of  the  statement  in 
John  5:17,  that  God  works  even  now.  Augustine's  answer,  that 
God  ceased  to  create  new  genera,  but  continues  to  sustain  the 
world,  became  the  classic  solution  of  the  difficulty.-'  He  adds  a 
list  of  things  symbolized  by  the  rest  of  God — man's  rest  in  God, 
man's  rest  after  his  good  works,  the  rest  of  Christ  in  the  tomb, 

■  So  the  mediaeval  writers  asserted,  Beda  Com.  20sC;  Honorius  Hex.  258C; 
Remi  56B;   Peter  Lombard  II,  17,  4;   Bandinus  II,  17;   Peter  Comcslor  1066D. 

^  Ibid.  25.  Citations  of  this  are  found  in  Beda  Hex.  32B,  Com.  2o6.\;  .\ngeIomus 
i24.\;   Peter  Comestor  1064C. 

3  Lit.  VII,  28,  43;  cf.  Beda  Hex.  43H,  Co»i.  2o^).\;  Peter  Comestor  1066C;  Peter 
Lombard  II,  17,  2. 

*  Lit.  IV,  12,  22;  cf.  Vincent  of  Beauvais,  Spct.  hist.  I,  30;  Eugcnius  Toletanus, 
Monosticha;  pseudo-Eucherius  901D;  Beda //f.v.  34D,  36.\;  Com.  202D;  .\ngelomus 
125B;  Thierry  of  Chartres  57;  Hrabanus  465.!;  Peter  Lombard  II,  15,  6;  Bandinus 
11,15;  Rupert  of  Dcutz  25gA;  Hildcbert  i.mSA;  Alcuin/r. /w  GVm.  1O36;  Glyca  29B; 
CI.  Marius  Victor  I,  171;   Peter  Comestor  io65.\;  Raleigh  I,  2,  7;   .\bclard  769U. 


72  THE   HEXAEMERAL   LITERATURE 

and  the  Jewish  Sabbath.^  Augustine  is  also  the  first  to  make  use 
of  the  topic  of  the  seven  ages  of  the  world,  which  he  connects  by 
elaborate  analogies  to  the  days  of  creation  and  the  seven  ages  of 
man  {Man.  I,  23),  a  topic  which  was  extremely  popular  among 
his  followers.^  Ambrose,  following  Philo,  had  already  spoken 
of  the  seven  ages  of  man,  in  connection  with  the  number  seven, 
and  Augustine  apparently  combined  material  from  these  sources 
with  the  old  Hebrew  notion  of  the  world-week  {supra,  p.  27). 

'  Man.  I,  22;  Lit.  IV,  11;  cf.  CI.  Marius  Victor  I,  178  ff.  and  Eugenius  Toletanus, 
Monosticha. 

'  Of  the  followers  of  Augustine,  Abelard  771D,  and  Honorius  De  im.  m.  II,  75, 
give  the  ages  of  the  world  in  connection  with  those  of  man;  pseudo-Eucherius  903B, 
Beda  Hex.  36B  and  Com.  203,  Honorius  Hex.  259C,  and  Bruno  160A  connect  them 
with  the  days  of  creation.  The  terms  employed  vary  somewhat,  but  are  similar  to 
those  of  Augustine.  Cf.  also  DCD  XXII,  30,  5.  For  the  seven  ages  of  man,  see 
Philo  37,  10  ff.;  Ambrose  Ep.  44,  10;  Anast.  Sin.  949C;  Eugenius  Toletanus;  Vic- 
torinus  Petauionensis  3 13 A. 


CHAPTER  VII 
ERIGENA  TO  THE  RENAISSANCE 

The  period  from  430  A.D.,  the  date  of  the  death  of  Augustine, 
until  the  Renaissance  produced  a  great  number  of  Hexaemera. 
Most  of  the  poetical  versions  of  the  Genesis  story  were  written 
soon  before  or  after  430,  but  their  interest  does  not  fall  in  this 
field  because  in  general  they  do  not  attempt  to  comment  upon  the 
creation  story.' 

Perhaps  the  most  important  single  work  of  this  period  is  the 
epoch-making  De  divisione  naturae  of  Johannes  Scotus  Erigena, 
which  contains  an  interpretation  of  the  Hexaemeron  highly  inter- 
esting in  itself,  but  of  a  heterodox  character  that  diminished  its 
influence.  Neo-Platonism,  which  came  to  him  through  the  pseudo- 
Dionysius,  is  the  dominating  influence  in  Erigena,  but  his  citations 
show  that  he  was  also  familiar  with  Basil,  Ambrose,  Gregor)'. 
Origen,  Maximus  Confessor,  and  Augustine,  and  with  the  Timacus 
probably  in  the  version  of  Chalcidius. 

The  philosophy  of  Erigena  centers  in  the  notion  that  every- 
thing, in  so  far  as  it  exists,  exists  in  God,  and  his  interpretation 
of  the  six  days'  work  is  a  reconciliation  of  the  Scriptures  with  his 
own  theory  that  the  divine  goodness  proceeds  from  itself  first  into 
the  ideal  types,  second  into  the  larger  subdivisions  of  corporeal 
things,  and  third  into  individual  things  (III.  iq.  681BC;  27, 
yooCff.). 

'  The  poems  of  CI.  Marius  Victor  and  Eugenius  Tolelanus  arc  exceptions.  The 
former  gives  a  description  of  the  Trinity  in  theological  terms;  it  recognizes,  and 
attempts  to  reconcile,  the  two  accounts  of  creation  in  Genesis  (U.  15-21),  argues 
against  the  eternity  of  matter  (22-47),  sa>'s  that  the  upper  waters  protect  us  against 
the  fires  of  heaven  (66  ff.),  and  in  discussing  the  two  accounts  of  the  creation  of  man 
gives  evidence  that  the  author  was  familiar  with  the  speculation  on  this  matter,  such, 
e.g.,  as  is  found  in  .\ugustine  Lit.  Cf.  also  I,  171  fl.,  178  flf.  with  .\ug.  Lit.  IV,  12.  22; 
II,  21.  The  Monosticha  of  Eugenius.  which  supplements  the  poem  of  Dracontius, 
is  thoroughly  .\ugustinian;  cf.  1.  8:  qui  sent  per  requiclus  agit  faciensque  qukscit  with 
Augustine's  doctrine  of  God's  rest.  Eugenius  also  derives  from  Augustine  a  list  of 
things  symbolized  by  the  seventh  day. 

73 


74  THE  HEXAEMERAL  LITERATURE 

Erigena  conceives  of  God  as  a  trinity.  He  is  called  essentia, 
but  the  term  is  not  correct;  for  he  is  virepoiKno^ ,  virepdyaOo^ ^ 
v'TTepa\.T}6rj<i,  vTrepamvio'i,  v7r€pcro(j)0'i  (I,  5,  459D) ;  and  after  a 
discussion  of  the  categories  Erigena  concludes  that  God  is  above 
them  all  (ibid.  463B;  I,  72,  5i8Aif.).  God's  action  therefore  is 
thus  defined  :"cum  ergo  audimus  deum  omnia  facere,  nil  aliud 
debemus  intellegere,  quam  deum  in  omnibus  esse,  hoc  est,  essentiam 
omnium  subsistere.  ipse  enim  solus  per  se  uere  est,  et  omne, 
quod  uere  in  his,  quae  sunt,  dicitur  esse,  ipse  solus  est.  nihil  enim 
eorum,  quae  sunt,  per  se  ipsum  uere  est.  quodcumque  autem  in 
eo  uere  intellegitur,  participatione  ipsius  unius  qui  solus  per  se 
ipsum  uere  est  accipit"  (I,  17,  518A). 

The  second  of  the  classes  of  things,  after  God,  is  the  created 
creating,  that  which  the  Greeks  called  the  irpwroTvira^  6ela  deXrjixaTa 
and  l^euL  (II,  1-2),  usually  termed  by  Erigena  causae  primordiales. 
They  are  Platonic  ideas,  but  as  in  Philo  and  the  neo-Platonists, 
they  are  thoughts  of  God,  perfect  and  immutable  (II,  15,  54 7 A). 

The  old  difficulty  of  the  Hexaemera  now  arises  before  Erigena — 
if  God  is  immutable,  how  can  he  be  moved  at  any  time  to  create  ? 
and  on  the  other  hand,  how  can  creation  be  coeternal  with  him  ? 
Erigena's  answers  bear  some  traces  of  having  received  suggestions 
from  Augustine,  with  whom  they  may  be  compared;  briefly  they 
are  as  follows.  God  is  always  the  cause,  and  it  is  therefore  not 
accidental  for  him  to  create  the  forms;  the  latter  are  eternal  in 
their  cause,  the  Word,  but  since  they  are  created  by  the  Deity, 
and  that  which  is  created  is  never  coeternal  with  that  which 
creates,  they  are  not  coeternal  with  God.  They  are  thus  both 
created  and  eternal  (II,  8,  9;  21,  561C;  III,  11,  656C).  Existing 
in  his  Word,  the  forms  are  the  will  of  God  and  God  is  never  without 
his  will  (III,  17).  Finally,  we  must  understand  that  the  creator 
and  the  created  are  not  two  different  things,  but  the  same  thing; 
whatever  is,  even  matter  itself,  gets  its  being  from  God  (III,  17). 

Erigena  then  does  not  with  the  other  Christian  writers  assert 
that  God  created  matter  out  of  nothing  except  in  a  special  sense. 
The  divine  goodness,  which  is  a  negation  of  being  because  it  is 
above  being,  is  "nothing."  Creation  is  the  procession  of  the 
divine  goodness  from  the  negation  of  being  to  its  affirmation, 


ERIGENA    TO   THE    RENAISSANCE  75 

from  itself  into  itself,  from  formlessness  into  formation;  for  the 
divine  wisdom  is  not  subject  to  any  superior  form,  but  is  itself 
the  form  of  forms.'     Thus  all  things  arc  Ihcophaniac. 

In  accordance  with  these  principles  Erigena  interprets  the 
story  of  creation  in  Genesis.  "In  the  beginning"  is  "in  the  Son" 
(III,  18).  "Heaven"  refers  to  the  primordial  causes  of  intelli- 
gible and  celestial  beings,  and  "earth"  to  those  of  the  corporeal 
world  (II,  15).  Before  these  things  came  forth  into  forms  and 
species,  and  while  they  lie  concealed  in  the  Word,  they  are  incom- 
prehensible, and  by  means  of  this  thought  Erigena  interprets 
Gen.  1 : 2  (III,  24).  The  earth  (i.e.,  the  causes  of  corporeal  things) 
is  unformed  and  void  before  proceeding  in  time  and  space  into 
the  forms  of  corporeal  things,  and  the  causes  of  intelligible  things 
are  called  "abyss"  and  said  to  be  covered  with  darkness  because 
they  are  perceived  by  no  other  intellect  other  than  that  in  which 
they  were  formed  (II,  16-17).  The  spirit  of  God  is  said  to  be 
borne  over  the  abyss  because  it  alone  is  superior  to  the  causes 
of  intelligible  things  and  is  their  source  (II,  19). 

Erigena  agrees  with  Augustine  that  all  things  were  created  at 
once  and  that  the  division  into  six  days  is  not  a  temporal  but  a 
logical  distinction.  Formlessness  and  formation  do  not  succeed 
each  other  temporally,  but  naturali  quadam  praccessionc  cl  scqucntia 
(III,  9),  and  to  illustrate  this  he  uses  the  same  tigure  as  Augustine, 
that  of  the  voice  and  words  (III,  27;  supra,  p.  67).  Creation 
took  place  in  the  number  six  because  of  the  perfection  of  six  (III. 
11;  III,  27). 

After  setting  forth  the  interpretations  of  Gen.  1:3  offered  by 
the  schools  of  Augustine  and  Basil.  Erigena  says  that  "Let  there 

'  III,  19,  681C  ff.:  ditiina  igilur  bonilas,  quae  proplcrea  nihilum  dicilur,  quoniam 
ultra  omnia  qiuie  sunt  el  quae  non  sunt  in  nulla  essentia  inuenilur,  ex  negaiione  omnium 
cssenliarum  in  affirmationem  totius  uniucrsitatis  essentiae  a  sc  ipsa  in  se  ipsam  descendit, 
ueluti  ex  nihilo  in  aliquid,  ex  inessenliaJitale  in  esseritialilaiem,  ex  injormilate  in  formas 
innumcrabiles  el  species,  prima  siquidem  ipsius  progressio  in  prinwrdiales  causas,  in 
quibus  fit,  ueluti  informis  quaedam  materia  a  scriptura  dicilur;  materia  quidem,  quia 
initium  est  essentiae  rerum,  informis  ucro,  quia  informilati  diuitiac  sapientiae  proximo 
est.  diuina  autem  sapientia  informis  rectc  dicilur  quia  ad  nulUim  formam  supcriorem 
sc  ad  formalionem  suam  conuertitur,  est  enim  omnium  formartim  infinitum  exemplar, 
ct  dum  descendit  in  diuersas  uisibilium  cl  inuisibilium  formas  ad  sc  ipsam  ueluti  ad 
formationem  suam  respicil. 


76  THE   HEXAEMERAL   LITERATURE 

-.  be  light"  refers  to  the  procession  of  the  causes  into  their  effects, 
their  existence  in  the  Word  being  comparable  to  darkness  and  their 
procession  into  their  effects  hke  the  light  (III,  24-25).  The  term 
"one  day"  is  used  instead  of  "first"  because  the  causes  and  effects 
are  really  one,  being  different  aspects  of  the  same  thing  (III,  25). 
He  interprets  the  upper  waters  as  the  spirituales  omnium 
uisibilium  rationes  (III,  26);  the  lower  waters  are  the  individual 
things  that  arise  and  pass  away  in  the  lower  world,  and  the  firma- 
ment between  the  two  is  the  mediary,  the  simple  elements  {ibid.). 
The  words  "let  there  be  light"  and  similar  commands  refer  to  the 
special  creation  of  the  causes  generally  mentioned  in  Gen.  1:1, 
while  et  facta  est  lux,  et  fecit  deus  firmamentum  or  et  factum  est  ita 
denote  the  procession  of  the  causes  into  their  effects  (III,  27). 
He  says  that  Basil's  is  the  accepted  interpretation  of  the  verse 
regarding  the  making  of  the  land  and  the  sea,  but  to  him  the  sea 
t>pifies  the  mutabihty  of  matter  endowed  with  quality  and  sub- 
ject to  generation  and  decay,  while  the  dry  land  signifies  the  formae 
suhstantiales  which  suffer  no  change,  and  by  participation  in  which 
individuals  and  species  are  made,  i.e.,  the  class  forms,  like  "man" 
(III,  27). 

Gen.  1 :  11-12  mean  that  the  ids  seminalis  of  the  herbs  and  trees, 
causally  created  in  the  rationes  suhstantiarum,  came  forth  into 
species,  and  similarly  the  creation  of  the  luminaries  as  given  in 
Genesis  refers  to  the  procession  from  cause  to  form  (III,  32). 
There  is  a  long  digression  on  the  music  of  the  spheres  and  the  use 
of  the  stars  as  signs.  Speaking  of  the  production  from  the  waters, 
Erigena  allows  that  there  is  life,  anima,  in  the  plants,  but  not  uiuens 
anima  as  in  the  animals  (728Aff.).  The  creation  of  the  animals 
in  species  shows  that  the  art  of  dialectic  is  not  the  invention  of 
men  but  was  placed  in  the  very  nature  of  things  by  God  (IV,  4) . 

Man  was  created  with  the  other  animals  (IV,  5)  but  was  pre- 
ferred above  them  by  being  made  in  the  image  of  God;  to  inquire 
why  he  was  made  an  animal  and  at  the  same  time  in  God's  image 
is  too  presumptuous  (IV,  7).  Man  typifies  the  whole  universe, 
having  intellect  with  the  angels  and  in  his  body  all  the  parts  of 
the  corporeal  world;  so  again  he  shows  the  nature  of  God  (IV,  5  ff.). 
However,  real  human  nature,  as  created  by  God,  is  not  that  which 


ERIGENA   TO   THE    RENAISSANCE  77 

is  subject  to  the  senses  and  to  the  distinction  of  sex;  it  was  the 
true  image  of  God;  but  man  by  his  own  will  deserted  this  condi- 
tion and  became  like  the  animals  (760D  ff.)- 

By  the  rest  of  God  on  the  seventh  day  is  meant  the  intelligible 
Sabbath,  when  all  sensible  things  shall  rest  in  the  inteUigible,  all 
intelligible  things  in  their  causes,  and  the  causes  in  the  cause  of 
causes,  God  (V,  37,  991C). 

As  for  the  other  Hexaemera  of  this  period,  their  first  characteris- 
tic is  eclecticism,  the  citation,  comparison,  and  discussion  of  pre- 
viously expressed  opinions,  rather  than  the  formation  of  original 
views.  Furthermore,  although  Augustine  was  the  great  authority 
from  whom  all  drew  and  to  whom  was  accorded  universal  respect, 
there  was  a  constantly  growing  tendency  to  eliminate  the  abstrac- 
tion of  Augustinianism,  and  to  present  a  more  concrete  exegesis, 
representing  the  successive  creations  as  the  steps  in  a  physical 
process.  Some  of  the  earher  Hexaemera,  for  example  those  of 
the  pseudo-Euchcrius,  Angelomus,  and  the  Commentary  of  Beda, 
are  distinctly  Augustinian;  but  there  grew  up  a  dissatisfaction, 
the  germ  of  which  is  found  in  the  Hexaemeron  of  Beda,  with  the 
Augustinian  doctrines  of  the  creation  of  all  things  at  once  and  the 
allegorical  interpretation  of  the  six  days. 

In  keeping  with  the  above  is  the  third  distinguishing  tendency 
of  the  Hexaemera  of  this  period,  increased  interest  in  more  minute 
and  sometimes  entirely  irrelevant  questions  suggested  by  the 
phraseology  of  the  Scriptures,  or  by  science,  pseudo-science, 
theology,  angelology,  demonology,  and  the  like,  in  the  discussion 
of  which  the  authors  display  more  pedantry  and  credulity  than 
even  their  predecessors  of  antiquity. 

These  characteristics  are  perhaps  partially  due  to  the  fact 
that  Greek  philosophy  and  especially  Plato  were  unknown  to  the 
mediaeval  writers  except  through  the  medium  of  translation  or 
quotation.  Their  sources  were  the  better  known  Fathers — Augus- 
tine, Ambrose,  Basil,  and  Jerome;  and  without  the  direct  influence 
of  the  Greeks  they  were  unable  to  give  the  atmosphere  of  idealism 
which  seems  never  to  have  been  achieved  in  this  form  of  litera- 
ture unless  the  writers  came  under  the  influence  of  Plato's  cos- 
mology.    The  direct  influence  of  the  Greek  philosophers  in  the 


78  THE  HEXAEMERAL  LITERATURE 

early  part  of  this  period  was  inconsiderable,  except  in  the  case 
of  Aristotle  in  the  Middle  Ages;  and  Platonism  came  down 
chiefly  through  Macrobius,  Apuleius,  Boethius,  Chalcidius,  and  St. 
Augustine.  A  few  stock  references  to  Plato  were  made  {supra , 
p.  II,  n.  2). 

The  best  index  of  the  prevailing  type  of  interpretation  at  this 
period  is  a  comparison  of  their  doctrines  with  those  of  Augustine 
on  questions  where  a  difference  of  opinion  arose.  The  latter 
had  stated  that  in  Gen.  1:1  "heaven"  meant  the  angels  and 
"earth"  the. chaos  of  matter;  that  all  things  were  created,  form 
and  matter  together,  in  the  beginning  of  time;  and  that  the  six 
days  of  creation  were  in  reality  the  six  stages  in  which  the  creation 
was  displayed  to  the  angels.  In  this  manner  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis  was  reconciled  with  Gen.  2:4,  "in  the  day  that  the  Lord 
God  made  the  earth  and  the  heavens."  This  explanation  was 
seldom  accepted  in  its  entirety,'  although  it  is  frequently  men- 
tioned,^ and  portions  of  it  were  adopted  in  somewhat  modified 
form.^  But  in  general  the  commentators,  headed  by  Beda,  pre- 
ferred to  understand  the  six  days  to  be  real  days,"  explaining 
Gen.  2:4  by  asserting  that  in  the  latter  passage  dies  means  "space 
of  time,"  not  "day",^  and  that  all  things  were  created  at  once 
in  the  sense  that  the  first  heaven  and  earth  contained  the  sub- 
stance of  all  things,  i.e.,  matter,  which  with  Augustine  they 
would  not  admit  was  made  wholly  without  form,  and  which  was 

'  Pseudo-Eucherius  SgjAff.  adopts  Augustine's  explanation  of  "evening"  and 
"morning,"  and  Abelard  745C  fif.  says  the  days  are  not  those  which  we  measure; 
they  are  to  be  understood  as  the  distinction  of  the  works;  "evening"  is  the  concep- 
tion in  God's  mind,  "morning"  its  performance  and  completion. 

^  Hugo  of  St.  Victor  33B;  Honorius  Hex.  260A  ff.;  Vincent  of  Beauvais  Spec, 
nat.  II,  IS  fif. 

3  Beda  Com.  193D  and  passim,  though  thinking  of  the  days  as  real,  is  reminiscent 
of  Augustine.  It  is  frequently  stated  that  "evening"  is  the  end  of  one  work  and 
"morning"  the  beginning  of  the  next;  Honorius  Eliic.  1113B;  Angelomus  118C; 
Remi  56A;  Augustine  Lit.  IV,  18,  32  is  the  source.  The  angels  are  identified  with 
the  light:  Neckam  I,  3;  Honorius  Eluc.  1112D;  Angelomus  116D;  Peter  Lombard 
II,  13,  2;  Bandinus  II,  13;  Rupert  207D.  Arnold  of  Chartres  (see  index)  gives  an 
explanation  of  the  six  days  that  was  undoubtedly  suggested  by  Augustine. 

••  So  Suarez,  Tract.  I,  lo-ii,  after  discussing  and  rejecting  the  interpretations  of 
Augustine  and  Philo;  cf.  Hugo  of  St.  Victor  3  5 A. 

5  Beda  Hex.  39B;  Hugo  of  St.  Victor  38B. 


ERIGKNA    TO    THE    RENAISSANCE  79 

tormcd  in  six  days  into  this  world.'  From  failure  to  emphasize  the 
causales  rationes  which,  according  to  Augustine,  were  implanted  in 
the  first  creation  and  gave  rise  to  the  genera  and  species  of  things, 
the  commentators  finally  came  to  absolute  dissent  with  him  in  this 
matter,  declaring  that  species  were  made  after  substance.'  In  this 
may  be  seen  a  reversion  to  the  older  exegesis  of  Basil  and  Ambro.se. 
The  writers  sometimes  state  that  God's  work  consists  of  creation, 
disposition,  and  adornment.^ 

Disagreement  with  these  fundamental  doctrines  of  Augustine 
naturally  brought  with  it  other  important  differences.  There  was 
a  growing  tendency  to  explain  "heaven"  in  Gen.  i:i,  identified 
by  Augustine  with  the  angels,  as  a  place,  to  enumerate  the  difierent 
heavens,"*  and  to  give  an  account  of  the  first  three  verses  wherein 
the  light  is  material,  not,  as  Augustine  said,  the  information  of 
the  angels  by  their  conversion  to  God.  Beda  here  again  was  the 
leader,  and  his  influence  may  be  traced  in  practically  all  the  Hexae- 
mera  that  were  not  thoroughly  Augustinian.  His  account  {Hex. 
i5AfY.),  which  owes  much  to  Augustine  and  to  Ambrose,  is  as 
follow^s.  Earth  and  water  are  expressly  mentioned  in  Gen.  1:2, 
and  the  other  elements  must  be  considered  to  be  present,  fire  in 
the  iron  and  stone  in  the  earth,  and  air  in  the  earth  itself,  as  exha- 

'  Beda  Hex.  15B;  Hugo  of  St.  Victor  34B  {non  ex  loto  carens  forma  sed  ad  compara- 
lionem  sequentis  pulchriliidinis  el  ordinis) ;   Hugo  of  Amiens  loc.  cit. 

'  Beda  Com.  205B:  ergo  ilia  omnia  primilus  fueritnt  non  mole  corporis  aut  magni- 
tiuiinc,  sed  iii  potentiac  cansalis;  cf.  Hex.  39C.  This  practically  agrees  with  .Augus- 
tine. But  cf.  Gregorius  Magnus,  Moralia  in  lob,  MPL  LXXVI,  644D:  rerum 
quippe  substantia  simul  creata  est  sed  simul  species  formata  non  est  (cited  by  Rcmi  59C) ; 
Hugo  of  Amiens  1253c;  Thierry  of  Chartres  53;  Bruno  147B,  i6i.\;  Peter  Lombard 
n,  7;  II,  8;  Bandinus  II,  7;  Angclomus  127.!;  Peter  Comestor  1065D.  .\lbcrtus 
Magnus  IV,  72,  2,  3  and  V^incent  of  Beauvais  Spec.  imI.  II,  23  ff.  comment  on  the 
difiference  of  opinion. 

^  Peter  Comestor  1056B,  Vincent  of  Beauvais  Spec.  nal.  II.  2-i. 

*  Beda  Com.  192B  names  seven  heavens — air,  ether,  Olympus,  fiery  space,  fir- 
mament, heaven  of  the  angels,  and  heaven  of  the  Trinity,  and  assigns  to  Jerome's 
authority  three — the  last  three  mentioned.  With  Strabus  6SC,  Remi  sj.X.  Peter 
Lomlxird  II,  2,  6,  and  Bandinus  II,  2,  use  a  formula  defining  the  first  heaven  as  the 
empyrean,  fiery,  intellectual  heaven,  so  called  from  its  splendor,  because  it  is  alwa>-s 
full  of  angels,  and  not  because  of  its  heat;  Neckam  I,  3  enumerates  the  coflum  trini- 
tatis,  empireum,  sidereum,  acrium.  Cf.  also  Hrabanus  445-^ '.  Vincent  of  Beauvais 
Spec.  hist.  I,  7;  Spec.  nat.  I,  28;  Isidorus  De  ord.  creat.  Ill,  4;  Peter  Comestor  10558. 


8o  THE  HEXAEMERAL  LITERATURE 

lations  show.'  There  was  not  a  complete  chaos,  but  the  earth 
was  much  like  that  portion  which  is  now  covered  by  the  sea;  the 
waters,  completely  covering  the  earth,  reached  as  high  as  the 
waters  above  the  firmament.^  The  first  created  light,  which  is 
not  the  light  in  which  the  angels  dwelt  (i6B,  quoting  Basil),  but 
material  hght,  shone  on  the  lower  portions  of  the  universe,  light- 
ing the  region  now  lighted  by  the  sun  (17A).  From  Ambrose  he 
takes  the  naive  explanation  that  if  divers  can  see  under  water  by 
emitting  oil  from  their  mouths,  God  can  surely  cause  light  to 
shine  in  the  water.^  The  explanation  of  the  separation  of  the 
light  and  darkness  of  course  depends  upon  the  view  taken  of  the 
light."  Some,  following  Augustine  DCD  XI,  19,  take  it  to  be 
the  separation  of  the  good  and  the  bad  angels;  others,  following 
Lit.  I,  17,  34,  call  it  the  separation  of  formed  and  unformed  things 
{supra,  p.  68).  But  in  the  Hexaemeron  (17C)  Beda  says  that  the 
light  was  divided  so  as  to  shine  in  the  upper  and  not  the  lower 
parts  of  the  earth,  and  that  it  passed  under  the  earth,  making  a 
day  of  twenty-four  hours  with  morning  and  evening,  precisely  as  the 
sun  does.  Hrabanus  (448C)  follows  him.  This  of  course  confhcts 
with  the  meaning  of  "morning  "  and  "  evening "  given  by  Augustine, 
but  many  of  the  writers  show  reminiscences  of  the  latter. 

The  efforts  to  give  a  concrete  definition  of  the  firmament  and 
the  waters  above  it  are  also  typical  of  the  time.  In  general,  two 
opinions  were  current,  that  of  Basil,  according  to  which  the  firma- 
ment is  not  soHd  but  simply  a  dividing    space  in   the  heavens, ^ 

'This  is  Basilian;  supra,  p.  46.  Cf.  Hrabanus  446A;  Angelomus  115D;  Remi 
5SA. 

'  Hrabanus  446C;  Remi  loc.  cit.;  Neckam  1,  3;  Strabus  69D. 

3  Ambrose  142B;  cf.  Basil  45B.  Beda  loc.  cit.;  Hrabanus  448A;  Angelomus 
117B;  Peter  Lombard  II,  13,  3.  Remi  55B  says  that  the  light  was  like  our  twilight; 
cf.  Peter  Comestor  10S7B.  It  is  called  lucida  nubes  in  Hugo  of  St.  Victor  34D,  Peter 
Comestor  loc.  cit.  and  Peter  Lombard  op.  cit.  2;  cf.  Du  Bartas  in  Sylvester's  trans- 
lation: "Whether  about  the  vast  confused  crowd  For  twice  six  hours  he  spread  a 
shining  cloud";  Milton,  P.L.  VII,  247:  "Sphered  in  a  radiant  cloud,  for  yet  the  sun 
Was  not;  she  in  a  cloudy  tabernacle  Sojourned  the  while." 

*  Traces  of  the  Augustinian  doctrine  of  the  hght  are  seen  in  Beda  Com.  193D; 
Honorius  Hex.  261A;  Strabus  67B;  Neckam  I,  3.  Arnold  of  Chartres  isigAff. 
holds  the  light  to  be  God  himself,  who  reveals  the  world  to  Adam. 

5  Cf.  Isid.  De  ord.  creat.  IV,  8;  Rupert  of  Deutz  219A;  Vincent  of  Beauvais 
Spec.  hist.  I,  20;  Angelomus  118D;  Peter  Lombard  II,  14,  2;  Bandinus  II,  14;  accord- 
ing to  the  latter  two,  some  thought  it  fiery. 


ERIGENA    TO    THE    RENAISSANCE  8l 

and  the  more  popular  opinion  that  it  was  a  soHd  thing,  made  out 
of  the  waters,'  and  either  ice^  or  crystalline.^  The  waters  above 
the  lirmament  were  sometimes  said  to  be  water,"  sometimes  ice,* 
sometimes  vapor  {supra,  p.  69,  n.  3),  while  on  the  other  hand 
some  tried  to  explain  this  scriptural  difficulty  by  allegorical  means;' 
and  many  repeat  the  statement  of  Augustine,  that  whatever  the 
nature  of  the  waters,  we  must  believe  in  them,  for  the  authority 
of  the  Scriptures  is  greater  than  the  capacity  of  man's  mind  (supra, 
p.  69),  or  that  of  Beda,  that  what  the  waters  are  and  what  their 
use  is,  God  alone  knows.'  Beda's  theory  of  the  congregation  of 
the  waters — {Hex.  20B) — that  they  were  at  this  time  thickened 
from  the  consistency  of  clouds  to  their  present  density  and  thus 
made  to  occupy  less  space  than  before,*  and  that  the  hollows  to 
receive  them  were  then  made' — reappears  many  times  among 
these  authors. 

Although  in  the  above  cited  specific  instances  and  in  the  tone 
of  the  whole  work  the  mediaeval  writers  differ  much  from  Augus- 
tine, certain  of  Augustine's  doctrines  are  fundamental  with  them 
and  incidentally  many  topics  are  taken  from  him.  For  example, 
from  Augustine  is  derived  the  idea  that  God's  working,  being 
neither  in  time  nor  space,  is  wholly  unlike  human  working;  in 
support   of   which    Lit.  I,  18,  36  is  often  quoted  {supra,  p.  21). 

'Beda  Hex.  18BC;  Peter  Lombard  II,  14,  1;  Bandinus  loc.  cit.;  Hugo  of  St. 
Victor  35A;  Vincent  of  Beauvais /oc.  c//.;  Isid.  op.  r//.  IV,  4;  Peter  Comestor  1058.^. 

'  .'\ngelomus  119.^;   Conches  denies  this,  De  phil.  m.  57D  fl. 

i  Beda,  Lombard,  Bandinus,  Vincent,  Hugo,  Comestor  //.  cc;  Honorius  Hex. 
2s6A,  Hrabanus  449C. 

*  Rupert  of  Deutz  i ,  23  thinks  this  reasonable. 

5  Remi  56.^;  Abclard  743B;  Peter  Comestor  1058C  (suggests  as  a  possibility); 
cf.  Vincent  of  Beauvais  loc.  cit. 

^  E.g.,  Beda  Com.  195B,  giving  several  allegorical  e.xplanations;  Hildcbert  1213B; 
Peter  Damianus  ap.  MPL  CXLV,  992BC. 

'Beda  Hex.  ig.\\  Peter  Lombard  II,  14,  i;  Bandinus  II,  14;  cf.  Bruno  151C: 
lUrum  ....  super  lores  aquae  firtnamcnto  inter  posito  tuxturam  mutauerint  non  faciU 
dixerim. 

'Suggested  by  .\ugustinc  Lit.  I,  12,  26;  cf.  Hrabanus  451B;  .\ngclomus  119D; 
Lombard  II,  14,  5;  Bandinus  II,  14;  Strabus  69D;  Vincent  of  Beauvais  Spec.  hist. 
I,  21;  Spec.  not.  V,  3  (where  he  opposes  the  theory,  suggesting  that  the  upper  jxirt  of 
the  vapor  was  rarefied  into  air  and  only  the  lower  part  condensed);  Bruno  15 iB; 
Peter  Comestor  1059B. 

9  Basilian  in  origin;  cf.  Hrabanus,  .Vngelomus,  Lombard,  Bandinus,  Comestor  U.  cc. 


82  THE  HEXAEMERAL  LITERATURE 

They  also  frequently  discuss  the  questions  which  Augustine 
treated  at  great  length — what  God  did  before  creation;  how  a 
desire  to  create  can  arise  in  an  immutable  God;  and  why,  if  God 
always  had  the  desire  and  intention  to  create,  the  world  is  not 
coeternal  with  him  {supra,  pp.  65  ft'.).  Furthermore  the  belief 
of  the  mediaeval  writers  that  the  commands  of  God  in  Genesis 
are  in  the  Word  is  founded  on  Augustine's  doctrine  {supra,  p.  21). 
The  mediaeval  Hexaemera  in  general  discuss  nearly  the  same 
topics;  some  of  these  have  their  source  in  Augustine,  some  may 
be  traced  back  of  Augustine,  and  some  are  the  product  of  the 
pedantic  curiosity  which  was  stated  above  to  be  characteristic  of 
the  time.  As  examples  of  themes  which  occur  very  commonly 
in  these  works,  the  following  will  serve:  that  "in  the  beginning" 
means  "in  the  Word"  {passim);  that  from  the  wording  of  Gen. 
1 : 2  heaven  was  not  unformed  and  void  like  the  earth  ;^  that  the 
darkness  was  not  an  entity,  but  the  absence  of  light  {supra,  p.  23); 
that  birds  and  fish  were  both  created  out  of  the  water  because  of 
the  likeness  of  moist  air  to  water  {supra,  p.  70) ;  the  comparison 
of  the  passage  of  the  spirit  of  God  over  the  waters  to  the  passage 
of  the  will  of  the  artisan  over  his  work  {supra,  p.  68,  n.  3);  that 
the  second  day  is  not  blessed  because  the  number  two,  which  is 
the  first  to  go  beyond  unity,  is  the  principle  of  evil;^  that  the  soul 
of  man  is  not  made  from  God's  nature  {supra,  p.  71) ;  the  question 
how  the  race  would  have  been  propagated  had  there  been  no  sin;^ 
the  imprisonment  of  the  fallen  angels  in  the  lower  air;"*  that  sin 
is  responsible  for  the  harm  done  by  animals,  poisons,  and  thorns 
{supra,  p.  5,  n.  4);  that  "Let  us  make"  in  the  account  of  man's 
creation  is  evidence  of  the  trinity  {supra,  p.  52);  that  the  "image" 

'Bruno  1486;  Honorius  Hex.  255A;  Angelomus  iisA;  Aethicus  I,  i,  2;  Hra- 
banus  44SA;   Bandinus  II,  2;  Arnold  of  Chartres  1518C. 

'  Remi  56B;  Peter  Lombard  II,  14,  4;  Bandinus  II,  14;  Peter  Comestor  1058D; 
Vincent  of  Beauvais  Spec.  nat.  II,  24  says:  tradunt  enim  Hebraei  quod  in  secunda 
angelus  f actus  est  diaboliis,  and  makes  this  the  reason  (apparently  drawing  from  Comes- 
tor loc.  ciL). 

^  Beda  Com.  201A;  Erigena  IV,  12;  Angelomus  123B;  Rupert  of  Deutz  254; 
Peter  Comestor  1064B.     Augustine  discussed  this  topic. 

"An  Augustinian  topic;  Lit.  Ill,  10,  14-15;  cf.  Neckam  I,  3;  Peter  Lombard 
II,  6,  3;  Bandinus  II,  6;  Rupert  of  Deutz  214B;  Vincent  of  Beauvais  Spec.  hist.  I,  10. 


\ 


ERIGENA   TO    THE    RENAISSANTE  83 

of  God  in  man  is  internal  (supra,  p.  32);  that  creation  took  place 
in  the  spring  {supra,  p.  59,  n.  2);  that  God's  goodness  is  the 
reason  for  creation  {supra,  p.  5,  n.  i);  that  God's  rest  on  the 
seventh  day  means  that  he  ceased  to  create  new  genera,  but  con- 
tinues to  support  the  universe  (supra,  p.  71,  n.  4);  the  erect 
stature  of  man  {supra,  p.  10.  n.  3);  that  time  was  made  with  the 
world;  why  so  little  was  said  of  the  angels  and  heaven;'  why 
man  was  assigned  food  if  he  was  made  immortal  (supra,  p.  71); 
topics  concerning  the  angels;^    discussion  of  astronomical  topics. 

In  general  the  mediaeval  Hexaemera  conform  to  the  type  that 
has  just  been  described;  in  the  twelfth  century,  however,  there 
were  certain  new  developments.  Briefly,  these  are  the  tendency 
to  explain  creation  as  a  continuous  physical  process  depending 
upon  the  working  out  of  natural  causes,  and  the  renewed  influx 
of  the  influence  of  Plato,  the  neo-Platonists,  and  Erigena. 

In  the  movement  first  mentioned,  Beda,  with  his  account  of 
Gen.  1:2,  partially  adapted  from  Augustine,  was  the  real  leader, 
and  was  followed  in  the  essentials  of  his  exegesis  by  Hrabanus. 
Remi,  Honorius,  Bruno,  Hugo  of  St.  Victor,  Peter  Lombard, 
Bandinus,  William  of  Conches,  and  Vincent  of  Beauvais.  Thierry 
of  Chartres,  however,  and  to  a  less  extent  William  of  Conches, 
probably  taking  their  start  from  the  principles  of  Beda,  carried 
this  variety  of  interpretation  much  farther.  Thierry  applies  it 
to  the  whole  narrative  of  creation.  In  Gen.  1:1,  "heaven,"  he 
states,  means  tire  and  air,  and  "earth"  is  earth  and  water;  of 
these,  fire  is  active,  earth  is  passive,  and  the  others  are  inter- 
mediary.^  The  heavens  cannot  stand  still  because  of  their  light- 
ness, and  since  they  cannot  go  forward,  they  revolve.     In  their 

'  Beda  Hex.  i6.\;  Hugo  of  Si.  V'ictor  38D;  Hrabanus  447A;  Honorius  Hrx. 
253R;  the  reason  usually  given  was  that  Moses  wrote  primarily  for  the  instruction 
of  the  inhabiunts  of  this  world.  Raleigh  1,  i,  4,  says  that  it  was  because  of  the  limited 
understanding  of  the  Israelites. 

'  K.g.,  the  nine  I3ionysian  orders,  passim;  the  fall  of  Lucifer  and  its  cause,  and 
the  functions  of  the  angels  as  guardians,  passim;  the  question  whether  the  angels 
have  bodies  (Rupert  of  Deutz  4;  Peter  Lombard  II,  8;  Bandinus  II,  8);  whether  all 
grades  of  angels  arc  sent  as  messengers  (Lombard  II,  10). 

i  Supra,  p.  14.  The  whole  statement  is  reminiscent  of  Plato's  arrangement 
of  the  elements  in  proportion,  especially  as  Thierry  (58)  sa>-s  that  Ciod  proportionaiiter 
adaptauit  the  qualities  of  the  elements.     Thierry,  as  will  be  seen,  knew  the  Timaeiu. 


84  THE  HEXAEMERAL  LITERATURE 

first  revolution,  the  highest  element  of  heaven,  fire,  lighted  the 
highest  of  the  lower  elements,  air,  and  through  the  medium  of  the 
air  warmed  the  water.  As  the  result,  some  of  the  water  rose  and 
was  suspended  in  the  form  of  vapor  over  the  lower  world,  and  with 
the  second  movement  of  the  heaven,  the  second  day,  the  air  sHd 
into  the  space  between  the  vaporized  water  and  the  fluid  water 
below,  forming  the  firmament  (54).  By  the  diminution  of  the 
water  in  this  way,  and  by  the  continuation  of  the  heating  process 
during  the  third  revolution  of  the  fire,  land  was  made  to  appear 
in  the  form  of  islands,  and  the  heat  gave  to  the  earth,  still  mingled 
with  the  water,  the  power  to  produce  vegetable  forms.  The 
stars  too  were  made  from  waters  drawn  up  into  the  firmament.' 
The  action  of  heat  on  the  earth  and  sea  also  produced  the  fish, 
birds,  beasts,  and  man.  William  of  Conches,  who  in  general  held 
to  the  interpretation  of  Beda,  agreed  with  Thierry  in  the  latter 
particular,  the  creation  of  living  beings  by  the  action  of  heat,  and 
to  justify  himself  against  the  criticism  that  this  detracted  from 
God's  power,  he  contended  that  it  rather  exalted  God's  power  to 
hold  that  God  gave  things  such  a  nature  and  created  the  human 
body  through  the  operation  of  nature  {De  phil.  mund.  56B).^ 

The  renewed  interest  in  Plato  at  this  time  affected  the  Hexae- 
meral  writers  in  various  degrees,  leading  some  merely  to  cite  him, 
others  to  frame  portions  of  their  doctrine  by  his  aid,  and  at  least 
one  author,  Bernard  of  Tours,  to  write  a  Platonic  account  of 
creation  based  almost  entirely  upon  the  Timaeus.  Chalcidius  was 
still  the  medium  through  whom  Plato  was  known.  In  particular, 
the  doctrines  of  the  pattern  of  the  world  in  God's  Word,  the  soul 
of  the  universe,  and  the  chaotic  state  in  which  matter  existed  at 
first,  show  Platonic  influence. 

•  They  are  made  from  water  because  nothing  is  visible  unless  it  opposes  some 
obstacle  to  the  vision  (56);  air  and  fire  do  not  do  this,  and  earth  is  too  heavy  to  be 
drawn  up;  and  moreover,  things  are  nourished  by  likes,  and  the  old  philosophers 
say  that  the  stars  are  nourished  by  water. 

^  Cf.  K.  Werner,  "Die  Kosmologie  und  Naturlehre  des  scholastischen  Mittelalters 
mit  spezieller  Beziehung  auf  Wilhelm  von  Conches,"  Sitzungsb.  d.  k.  Ak.  Wiss., 
Phil.-Hist.  KL,  Wien,  75,  320.  Wilhelm  "s  blunt  statement,  non  enim  ad  litteram 
credendus  est  constasse  primum  hominem  (loc.  cit.  s6A)  and  some  of  his  other  theories 
gave  offense,  and  he  was  obliged  to  make  retractions  in  a  later  work. 


ERIGENA    TO    THE    RENAISSANCE  85 

In  the  earlier  works  of  this  period  but  little  emphasis  was 
on  the  theory  of  the  existence  of  the  forms  of  things  in  the  Word, 
although  this  was  a  part  of  the  teaching  of  Augustine.  Now,  in 
the  authors  who  show  their  knowledge  of  Plato  by  citing  him, 
this  topic  is  again  taken  uj).  So  Honorius  {Dc  int.  mund.  I.  2) 
says:  "creatio  mundi  quinque  modis  scribitur.  uno  quo  ante 
tempora  saecularia  immensitas  mundi  in  mcnte  diuina  concipitur, 
quae  conceptio  archetypus  mundus  dicitur  ....  secundo.  cum 
ad  exemplum  archetypi  hie  sensibilis  mundus  in  materia  creatur, 
sicut  legitur,  qui  manet  in  aeternum  creauit  omnia  insimul.  tertio 
cum  per  species  et  formas  sex  diebus  hie  mundus  formatur."  The 
other  modes  are,  respectively,  creation  by  man  and  the  final 
renewal  of  all  things  by  God.  While  the  general  tone  is  Augus- 
tinian,  the  expression  archetypus  mundus  in  the  above  passage  is 
allied  to  Platonism.  Honorius  shows  that  he  was  familiar  with 
the  Timaeus  by  citing  the  beginning  of  that  dialogue  in  Hex.  263A 
and  saying  that  Plato  there  used  the  words  "one,  two,  three' 
because  he  knew  the  virtue  of  the  perfect  number  six.  and  that 
the  numbers  refer  respectively  to  God,  the  spiritual  is  creatura 
and  the  corporeal  world. 

Abelard,  in  speaking  of  the  archetype,  definitely  associates 
Plato  with  the  idea,  and  is  very  liberal  in  his  treatment  of  him: 
"quasi  bina  sit  omnium  rerum  creatio,  una  quidem  primum  in 
ipsa  diuinae  prouidentiae  ordinatione,  altera  in  opere.  secundum 
quas  etiam  duas  creationes  duos  esse  mundos,  unum  uidclicet 
intellegibilem,  alterum  sensibilem.  astruxere  philosophi.  quod  nee 
ab  euangelica  dissidet  disciplina.  si  sententiae  ueritatem  magis 
quam  uerborum  attendamus  proprietatem  ....  item  nee  Plato 
quidem  in  hoc  errauit  quia  esse  mundum  intellegibilem  dixit,  si 
non  uocabulum  quod  ecclesiasticae  consuetudini  in  re  ilia  minima 
usitatum  est  sed  ipsam  rem  uolumus  attendere.  mundum  quippe 
ille  intellegibilem  nuncupauit  ipsam  rationem  qua  fecit  deus 
mundum.  quam  qui  esse  negat  sequitur  ut  dicat  irrationabiliter 
deum  fecisse  quae  fecit."'     He  is  of  course  wrong  in  identifying 

•  Hex.  737D  fl.  The  last  sentence  is  rcniiniscent  of  .\ugustinc  Retract.  I,  3; 
cf.  also  .\ug.  De  din.  quaest.  Sj,,  qu.  46. 


86  THE  HEXAEMERAL  LITERATURE 

the  Platonic  pattern  and  the  Christian  Word.  The  same  kind  of 
Platonism  is  shown  in  the  following  stanzas  of  his  hymns : 

Opus  dignum  opifice  In  ortum  mundi  sensilis 

pulchrum  indissolubile  mundus  intellegibilis 

ad  exemplar  fit  perfectissimum  caelo  simul  et  terra  condito 

instar  cuncta  concludens  optimum.  de  diuino  iam  prodit  animo. 

—MPL  CLXXVIII,  1775-  —Ihid.  1776. 

Abelard  also  refers  to  Tim.  29E  ff.  in  connection  with  the  phrase 
"God  saw  it  was  good"  (Hex.  766B),  and  to  show  that  the  will  of 
God  can  keep  ice  above  fire,  in  the  discussion  of  the  upper  waters, 
he  quotes  41B  in  the  version  of  Chalcidius  slightly  modified. 

The  notion  of  the  pattern  of  the  world,  containing  all  the  forms 
of  things,  is  also  found  in  Thierry  of  Chartres  and  Bernard  of 
Tours.  In  the  former,  the  pattern  is  the  sapientia  of  God,  which, 
as  will  be  seen,  he  mystically  calls  equality  with  God.  It  is  the 
source  of  being  for  the  forms,  measures  and  ideas  of  things.'  In 
Bernard,  the  pattern  is  the  Noys,  which  personified  is  one  of  the 
characters  of  his  De  mundi  universitate:  "ea  igitur  noys  summi  et 
exsuperantissimi  dei  est  intellectus  et  ex  eius  diuinitate  nata 
natura.  in  qua  uitae  uiuentes  imagines,  notiones  aeternae,  mundus 
intellegibihs,  rerum  cognitio  praefinita"  (13,  152  ff.).  Thus  all 
the  mediaeval  writers  who  touch  upon  the  topic  of  the  world- 
pattern  express  themselves  in  the  manner  inaugurated  by  Philo 
and  passed  on  through  Origen  and  the  neo-Platonists  to  Augustine. 

The  influence  of  Plato  upon  the  doctrine  of  a  world-soul  and 
upon  the  conception  of  chaotic  matter  has  been  noticed  in  a  former 
chapter  {supra,  pp.  7-9).  Here  again  Bernard  of  Tours  was  most 
strongly  influenced  by  the  Timaeus.  He  says,  however,  in  neo- 
Platonic  language,  that  the  world  soul  quadam  uelut  emanatione 
defluxit  (13,  168)  from  the  Noys,  and  uses  the  Aristotelian  term 
rerum  endelechia  (ibid.) to  describe  it.  But  his  description  of  the 
world  soul  as  a  globe,  finite,  indeed,  but  quam  non  oculis  uerum  solo 
peruideas  intellectu  {ihid.)  may  be  compared  with  Tim.  36E  5  fif., 
28A  I  ff.,  and  as  in  the  Timaeus  the  world  soul  is  divided  mathe- 
matically, so  here  number  secures  the  peaceful  union  of  the  world 

'  Hex.  66:  "unde  formae  omnium  rerum  et  mensurae  habent  existere,  ibi  notiones 
continentur. "     In  Aristotelian  terms  he  calls  it  the  formal  cause  {ibid.  67,  52). 


ERIGENA    TO   THE    RENAISSANCE  87 

and  its  soul  (14,  180  ff.).  The  function  of  the  world  soul  is  to  stop 
the  warring  of  the  elements  in  the  corporeal  world  (ibid.  190  flf.). 

The  above  are  the  more  specific  ways  in  which  the  Timaeus 
exerted  its  influence  in  these  times.  In  the  two  most  remarkable 
treatises  of  the  series,  the  Ilcxacmcron  of  Thierry  and  the  Dc  mundi 
univcrsitale  of  Bernard  of  Tours,  and  particularly  in  the  latter,  its 
impress  may  be  seen  in  other  details.  Thierry  likewise  expresses 
views  upon  the  nature  of  God  which  seem  to  be  influenced  by 
Erigena.  although  he  arrives  at  his  results  by  an  allegorizing 
mathematical  argument  which  appears  almost  neo-Pythagorean. 

Thierry  (52)  first  states,  in  Aristotelian  form,  that  there  are 
four  causes  of  the  world — the  eflicient.  God;  the  formal,  (iod's 
wisdom;  the  final,  God's  love;  and  the  material,  the  four  elements. 
Because  mundane  things  are  perishable  and  changeable,  they  must 
have  an  author  (cf .  Tim.  28A) ;  and  because  they  arc  arranged  in 
accordance  with  reason  and  the  best  order,  they  must  have  been 
created  in  accordance  with  wisdom  (cf.  Tim.  29A),  the  formal  cause. 
Furthermore,  because  God  needs  nothing  beyond  his  wisdom,  they 
must  have  been  created  solely  from  his  love  and  kindness  (cf. 
Tim.  29E).  The  Platonism  of  these  statements  will  readily 
be  recognized.  Thierry  of  course  held  that  God  actually  created 
matter  out  of  nothing. 

In  the  latter  part  of  the  fragment  of  the  Ilcxacmcron  is  found 
Thierry's  unique  reasoning  concerning  God  and  his  Wisdom. 
Unity  precedes  all  difi'erencc  and  all  change,  since  change  comes 
from  doubleness.  Then  unity  precedes  all  creation,  since  creation 
is  subject  to  change;  it  is  therefore  eternal  and  divine,  or  God. 
He  then  proceeds  (63):  "at  diuinitas  singulis  rebus  forma  essendi 
est.  nam  sicut  aliquid  ex  luce  lucidum  est.  uel  ex  calore  calidum, 
ita  singulae  res  esse  suum  ex  diuinitate  sortiuntur.  unde  deus 
totus  et  essentialiter  ubique  esse  perhibetur.  unitas  igitur  singulis 
rebus  forma  essendi  est."  In  so  far  then  as  things  partake  of 
unity  they  exist;  herein  Thierry  agrees  with  Erigena. 

Now  when  unity  is  multiplied  by  itself  it  can  produce  only 
equality  of  itself — unity — and  this  is  all  that  it  can  generate  of 
itself  (65).  Equality  with  unity,  then,  precedes  all  numbers  and 
is   therefore  eternal.     But   there  cannot   be   two  eternal   things, 


65  THE  HEXAEMERAL  LITERATURE 

and  so  unity  and  equality  with  unity  are  one  (66).  Since  the 
former  alone  has  the  property  of  generating,  and  the  latter  of  being 
generated,  they  have  been  designated  by  the  names  persona  genitoris, 
and  persona  geniti  {ibid.).  Again,  since  the  former  is  the  essence 
of  all  things,  the  latter  must  be  the  equal  of  the  essence  of  things; 
that  is,  an  eternal  mode,  or  definition,  or  determination,  aside 
from  which  nothing  can  exist  {ibid.).  This  mode  philosophers 
have  called  the  mind  of  divinity,  and  the  wisdom  of  the  creator. 
From  it  the  forms  of  all  things  take  their  existence,  and  in  it  are 
contained  the  ideas  (notiones,  notitiae)  of  all  things  {ibid.).  If  a 
notion  does  not  agree  with  the  wisdom  it  is  not  to  be  called  a 
notio  but  a  falsa  imaginatio.  He  Hkewise  identifies  the  equality 
of  unity  with  the  Word  and  with  the  aeterna  creatoris  de  omnibus 
rebus  praefinitio  (68). 

The  De  mundi  universitate  of  Bernard  of  Tours'  marks  the 
extreme  of  pre-Renaissance  Platonism.  Although  in  some  respects 
the  author  tries  to  give  the  treatise  a  Christian  setting,^  he  aban- 
dons all  reference  to  the  six  days,  and  follows  closely  the  Timaeus 
both  in  its  general  outline^  and  in  its  detail."  The  work  has  an 
imaginative,  mystical,  and  mythological  form;  Noys  and  the 
natural  forces  denoted  by  Natura,  Physis  and  Urania  are  per- 

'  It  is  now  generally  conceded  that  the  treatise  is  by  Bernard  of  Tours  (Siluestris) 
and  not  by  Bernard  of  Chartres;  Ueberweg-Heinze,  Gesch.  4.  Phil.  II,  214-16;  Clerval, 
Les  ecoles  de  Chartres,  1895,  158  ff. 

^  The  notion  of  heaven,  with  the  Dionysian  orders  of  angels,  is  Christian;  Noys 
corresponds  to  the  second  member  of  the  Trinity,  bom  of  God  (7,  5),  the  reason  of 
God  and  not  in  time  (9,  6).  Bernard  refers  to  the  first  unordered  chaos  as  diuinum 
opus  (8,  53),  implying  creationism,  but  in  61,  i  flf.  he  calls  it  one  of  the  two  principia, 
unitas  and  diuersum. 

3  Matter  is  represented  first  as  a  mater  or  nutrix  which  receives  various  forms 
and  is  in  constant  change  (10,  47  ff.,  supra,  p.  8).  Out  of  this  the  four  elements  are 
derived;  the  mathematical  derivation  in  the  Timaeus  however  is  not  imitated.  Then 
the  creation  of  the  world  soul  is  described,  but  without  the  mathematical  detail  of  the 
Timaeus.  The  mediacy  of  numbers  however  secures  the  harmony  of  the  soul  and 
body  of  the  world  (14,  180 ff.).  The  second  book,  the  Microcosmus,  describes  the 
creation  and  structure  of  man,  as  does  the  latter  part  of  the  Timaeus. 

^  E.g.,  the  motif  so  often  found  in  the  Timaeus,  that  there  is  an  innate  evil  in 
matter  which  makes  it  recalcitrant  {supra,  p.  6;  cf.  De  mund.  tmiv.  7,  13;  9,  23; 
".  73',  3I)  81;  S3,  14;  61,  15);  all  of  each  element  is  used  up  in  making  the  world, 
that  the  latter  may  be  perfect,  12,  130,  Tim.  32C-33A;    things  as  they  exist  in  the 


ERIGEN'A   TO   THE    RENAISSANCE  89 

sonified,  and  perform  the  acts  of  ordering  the  universe  and  making 
man.  Besides  the  Platonism  of  his  cosmology  in  general,  which  is 
seen  chiefly  in  his  conception  of  the  world  as  a  body  animated  by 
a  soul,  Bernard  introduces  the  doctrine  of  am'/xi^o-t?.'  His  idea  of 
the  elements  and  their  interaction  is  Aristotelian  (cf.  62.  50  fT.  and 
supra,  p.  13),  and  he  introduces  the  thought  that  matter  desires 
form,  probably  with  reference  to  Chalcidius,  but  ultimately  to 
Aristotle.^  In  certain  passages  there  is  a  suggestion  of  the 
pantheism  exemplified  by  Erigena.^ 

The  Hexaemeral  tradition  by  no  means  ends  with  Bernard  of 
Tours.  It  is  however  not  the  purpose  of  this  study  to  give  more 
than  a  cursory  review  of  its  later  course. 

The  Premiere  sematne  of  DuBartas.  the  first  chapters  of  Sir 
Walter  Raleigh's  History  of  the  World,  Tasso's  Le  selte  giornate  del 
mondo  creato,  and  the  seventh  book  of  Milton's  Paradise  Lost  may 
be  taken  as  representative  Hexaemera  of  this  final  period  of  the 
history  of  the  tradition.  In  general  they  conform  to  the  mediaeval 
standards  outlined  above,  and  this  is  especially  true  of  Raleigh; 
the  allegorical  interpretations  of  Augustine,  however,  are  entirely 
foreign  to  them,  and  they  are  more  apt  to  cite  and  draw  upon 
Basil  and  the  authors  influenced  by  him.  In  the  case  of  Du  Bartas. 
Pisides  furnished  most  of  the  material,  an  important  part  of  which 

Noys  are  aeternilali  congruum  ....  tiatura  cum  deo  nee  substiiniiij  dispiiraium, 
i3>  165;  cf.  Tim.  27D-28A;  the  persistence  of  the  world  depends  upon  the  will,  i.e., 
goodness,  of  God,  30,  25-31;  60;  Tim.  4i.\;  the  universe  is  an  animal,  31,  60  fl., 
Tim.  30B;  its  form  is  the  perfect  one,  the  sphere,  31,  80.  Tim.  33B;  time  is  the  image 
of  eternity,  and  differs  from  eternity  in  being  involved  in  number  and  movement, 
32,  iii;  115;  cf.  Tim.  37D;  besides  these  there  is  the  topic  of  man's  erect  stature 
(55,  27  ff.),  and  some  of  the  details  of  human  ph>-siology  are  Platonic,  cf.  the  account 
of  sight,  66,  15  ff.  and  Tim.  45 B  ff..  and  the  description  of  the  protection  of  the  e)^*. 
66,  ii  ff.,  with  Tim.  45I).  Cf.  also  7,  10  ff.  and  Tim.  .'9K;  uutricis  8.  41  with  Tim. 
49.\;  II,  85  ninxil  mcdietatibiis,  etc.,  and  Tim.  31B  ff.;  1 1,  87  and  Tim.  3:C;  31,  69 
and  Tim.  30D. 

'  39,  31  ff.,  cf.  especially  Tim.  41 U  8  ff.  In  37.  61  ff.,  Natura  sees  souls  descending 
from  heaven  to  enter  bodies. 

'8,  18 ff.;  cf.  Chalcidius  in  Tim.  .-86-S7,  and  Wrobcl,  Platonis  Timatus  intfrprrlf 
Chalcidio,  Intr.  xiii,  on  the  influence  of  Chalcidius. 

J  29,  5:  quidquid  enim  ad  essenliam  sui  generis  promotione  succedit,  ex  carlo  tarn- 
quam  ex  deo  nitae  siibsisleniiae  suae  causas  suscepii  et  naturam. — I)e  W'ulf,  Hist,  de  la 
PhU.  Med.  23i. 


90  THE  HEXAEMERAL  LITERATURE 

is  the  anecdotes  from  the  Physiologus.  Raleigh  cites  Basil,  Augus- 
tine, Philo,  Lactantius,  Beda,  and  many  mediaeval  authors. 
Tasso  seems  to  have  used  Basil,  and,  as  Pellissier  notes,'  the 
Premiere  semaine  of  DuBartas.  Milton  used  DuBartas  and  other 
material  drawn  from  his  extensive  reading.  The  scheme  of  his  poem 
tends  to  make  it  more  concrete  and  picturesque  than  the  others. 
Passing  to  the  discussion  of  a  few  of  the  more  important  topics 
of  the  Hexaemera  as  they  appear  in  these  writers,  it  will  be  found 
that  with  the  exception  of  Raleigh  they  speak  of  the  Word  and  the 
Wisdom  of  God.  DuBartas  has  httle  upon  this  matter,  but  in 
Milton  the  Word  is  made  an  actor  in  the  drama  and  the  agent  of 

creation: 

And  thou,  my  Word,  begotten  Son,  by  thee 
This  I  perform.     Speak  thou,  and  be  it  done. 

—VII,  163-64;  cf.  Ill,  383f. 

Milton  also  gives  a  suggestion  of  the  doctrine  of  the  pattern  world 

of  Plato: 

though  what  if  earth 
Be  but  the  shadow  of  heaven,  and  the  things  therein 
Each  to  the  other  like,  more  than  on  earth 
Is  thought?  _V,  574-77. 

A  primal  chaos  is  also  a  part  of  the  subject-matter  of  these 
authors.  Undoubtedly  Ovid,  whom  Raleigh  (I,  i,  5)  quotes,  fur- 
nished an  example  for  such  descriptions.  According  to  DuBartas, 
who  sets  forth  an  Ovidian  chaos,  God  first  created  the  four 
elements  out  of  nothing,  and  they  at  first,  lying  together  and  not 
yet  in  their  proper  places,  were  in  a  state  of  strife.  In  the  second 
book  he  devotes  another  long  passage  to  the  description  of  the 
chaos,  the  elements  and  their  interaction,  upon  the  latter  subject 
following  the  Aristotehan  doctrine. 

In  these  passages  of  DuBartas,  Milton  found  a  precedent  for 
his  own  description  of  chaos,  and  perhaps  used  them,  but  there  are 
clear  traces  of  both  Ovid  and  Lucretius  in  his  poem.    In  Chaos,  an 

inimitable  ocean,  without  bound. 
Without  dimension,  where  length  and  breadth  and  highth 
And  time  and  space  are  lost  jj  802-94. 

'  Georges  Pellissier,  La  vie  et  Us  osuvres  de  DuBartas,  Paris  1882,  267. 


ERIGENA   TO   THE    RENAISSAN'CE  9 1 

the  four  champions,  Hot,  Cold,  Moist,  and  Dry,  strive  for  the 
mastery,'  and  from  time  to  time  each  rules  for  a  moment,  as  the 
atoms  flock  to  his  banner.  The  champions  are  apparently  the 
four  elements,  which  are  so  mingled  that  the  chaos  lan  \>c  called 

The  womb  of  nature,  and  perhaps  her  grave,' 

Of  neither  sea,  nor  shore,  nor  air,  nor  fire. 

But  all  these  in  their  pregnant  causes  mixed 

Confusedly.  ,,.. 

■'  — Ibid.  Q11-14. 

The  Son  marks  the  bounds  of  the  world  in  this  chaos  with  golden 
compasses  (VII,  224),  and  the  Spirit  of  God,  brooding  over  it, 
brings  likes  together  and  gives  them  their  place.  In  the  further 
minor  details  of  their  accounts  of  the  six  days,  Milton,  DuBartas, 
and  Raleigh  adopted  the  topics  of  the  earlier  Hexaemera,  as  the 
notes  in  the  preceding  chapters  have  shown,  and  to  recount  them 
would  be  more  repetition. 

Doubtless  a  thorough  examination  of  the  philosophers,  encyclo- 
paedists, and  historians  of  the  late  Middle  Ages,  the  Renaissance, 
and  the  post-Renaissance  period  would  demonstrate  that  a  sur- 
prisingly large  number  made  use  of  topics  derived  from  the  Hexae- 
mera, and  inherited  through  many  intermediate  hands  from  Plato, 
Philo,  Basil,  and  Augustine.  The  recognition  of  the  existence  of 
this  long  line  of  writings,  whose  subject-matter  tended  to  arrange 
itself  under  a  limited  number  of  topics  common  to  all.  is  important 
for  the  complete  understanding  of  many  literary  works,^  not  only 
Milton,  Raleigh,  and  DuBartas,  but  also  passages  in  many  authors 
not  directly  connected  with  the  tradition. ■• 

'  Cf.  II,  8Q8-99:  "For  Hot,  Cold,  Moist,  and  Dr>-,  four  champions  fierce,  Strive 
here  for  mastery;"  Ovid  Afel.  I,  19:  frigida  pugnabant  calidis,  umfnlui  siccis. 

'  Cf.  Lucr.  V,  259:  omniparens  eadem  rerum  commune  stpuUrum. 

i  Pellissier  {op.  cit.)  fails  to  appreciate  that  DuBartas  came  at  the  end  of  this 
series  of  writings.  He  enumerates  as  authors  of  He.xaemcra,  besides  Pisidcs,  only 
Juvencus  Proba  (a  confusion  of  Juvencus,  who  should  not  have  Ixrcn  mentioned  at 
all,  and  Proba;  see  index).  Dracontius,  CI.  Marius  Victor,  and  .\vitus  (69,  n.  6). 

*  .\  few  illustrations  from  Sir  Thomas  Browne  {Rdigio  Medici)  will  show  the 
influence  of  He.xaemeral  topics  outside  of  their  proper  field:  "Time  w^  may  compre- 
hend; 'tis  but  five  da>'s  elder  than  ourselves,  and  hath  the  same  Horoscope  with  the 
World."  "Some  divines  count  Adam  thirty  years  old  at  his  Creation,  because  they 
suppose  him  created  in  the  perfect  ago  and  stature  of  man."  ".\nd  in  this  sense 
(i.e.,  in  the  Idea  of  God],  I  say,  the  Worid  was  before  the  Creation." 


INDEX  OF  NAMES 

Abaelardus,  Petrus  (d.  1142):  Exposilio  in  Genesim;  Introductio  ad  Theo- 
logiam;  Theologia  Christiana  {MPL  CLMII).     85  f.;  9  n.  3. 

Aegidius  Parisiensis  (b.  1162):  Revised  and  enlarged  the  Aurora  of  Petrus 
de  Riga. 

Aethicus  of  Istria  (6lh  century?):  Cosmographia;  contains  an  incomplete 
account  of  creation,  according  to  which  matter  was  first  made  and  then 
shaped  into  the  world  (I,  i,  i);  there  are  seven  heavens,  the  lowest  being 
the  firmament  (I,  i,  7);  the  angels  were  made  before  the  world  (I,  2,  i). 
Text  ap.  D'Avezac,  £thicus  et  ies  ouvrages  cosmographiqucs  intituUs  de  ce 
nom,  Paris,  1852;  cf.  Manitius,  Lat.  Lit.  d.  Milt.  229. 

Albertus  Magnus  (i  193-1280):  Summa  de  creaturis  (Opera,  XXXI\',  ed. 
S.  C.  A.  Borgnet,  Paris,  1895). 

Alcimus  Ecdicius  Avitus  (d.  523):  De  origitw  mundi  (ed.  R.  Peipcr,  Mon. 
Germ.  Hist.  VI,  2;  also  in  MPL  LIX);  poetical  paraphrase. 

Alcuin  (ca.  735-804):  Inlerrogationes  et  respansiones  in  Genesim  (Benedictine 
ed.  of  Augustine,  VIII,  1636  ff.;  MPL  C,  515). 

Ambrosius  Mediolanensis  (d.  397):   Uexaemeron  {MPL  XIV).     58  f.;   42. 

Ammonius  monachus  Alexandrinus  {ca.  400):  Enarratio  in  opus  sex  dierum 
(lost);  cited  by  Anast.  Sin:  856.^,  860C. 

Anastasius  Si.naita  {ca.  650):  Anagogicae  Conlanpla Hones  in  Hexaemeron 
{MPG  LXXXIX,  857  fT.).  Mainly  allegorical  treatment  of  creation. 
36,  57- 

Angelomus  (monk  of  Lu.xeuil,  ca.  855):  Commcntarii  in  Genesim  {MPL  CX\', 
loi  fT.).  Distinctly  Augustinian  (e.g.,  in  the  interjiretation  of  ''Let  there 
be  light"  and  of  the  meaning  of  the  six  days);  little  originality;  other 
authorities  are  often  cited.     Manitius  419-20. 

Annianus  {ca.  412):  Chronicler  to  whom  S>nicellus  apparently  owes  the 
designation  of  March  25  as  the  day  of  creation  (cf.  Gelzer,  Sextus  Iidius 
Africaniis,  II,  248). 

Anonymous  (a  Pharisee,  ca.  135-105  B.C.;  cf.  Charles's  Intr..  xiii):  The  Book 
of  Jubilees  or  Little  Genesis  (translated  from  the  Kthiopic  and  edited  by 
R.  H.  Charles,  London,  1902).  Originally  written  in  Hebrew;  there  was 
a  Greek  version  which  was  the  parent  of  the  Elhiopic  and  Latin  versions 
(Charles,  Intr.  xxvi  tT.) ;  the  latter  ed.  Ceriani.  .1/om.  sacr.  et  prof.  I,  1 15-62 
(1861).     25  ff. 

Anonymous  (early  in  the  Christian  era):  The  Book  of  Enoch  ("Elhiopic 
Enoch,"  translated  and  edited  by  R.  H.  Charles,  Oxford.  1893).  Origin- 
ally in  Hebrew;  the  Ethiopic  version  is  from  a  Greek  intermediar>-  lost 
after  Syncellus'  time.     25  ff. 

93 


94  THE  HEXAEMERAL  LITERATURE 

Anonymous  (a  Hellenistic  Jew  in  Egypt,  beginning  of  the  Christian  era): 
The  Book  of  the  Secrets  of  Enoch  ("Slavonic  Enoch";  translated  and 
edited  by  W.  R.  Moriill  and  R.  H.  Charles,  Oxford,  1896).  Not  a  version 
of  the  Book  of  Enoch ;  originally  written  in  Greek.   25  ff. 

Anonymous:  The  Book  of  Adam  and  Eve  (translated  from  the  Ethiopic  by 
Rev.  S.  C.  Malan,  London  and  Edinburgh,  1882),  a  Christian  work  of  the 
fifth  or  sixth  century.     25  ff. 

Anonymous  ( ?) :  Suidas,  s.v.  Tvpprivia,  speaks  of  a  Tuscan  who  wrote  a  history 
including  an  account  of  creation.  The  author  was  either  Christian  or  used 
scriptural  material;  he  introduced  the  theory  of  the  world- week. 

Anonymous:  Chronicler  of  the  tenth  century;  in  Cod.  Vat.  gr.  163  (Krum- 
bacher  361,  363);  contains  the  creation  account  found  in  Symeon  Logo- 
thetes  iq.v.). 

Anselmus  (d.  1 109):  Mentioned  as  the  author  of  a  book  on  the  Hexaemeron 
ap.  Monitum  in  Pisidae  Hex.,  MPG  XCII,  1388,  on  the  authority  of 
Trithemius,  Chron.  Hirsaugiense.  G.  Haenel  (Catalogi  librorum  manu- 
scriptorum,  Leipzig,  1830)  records  a  MS  (s.  xiii  membr.  fol.)  at  the  Biblio- 
theque  de  la  Ville,  Arras,  Anselmi  Cantuar.  comm.  super  principium  genesis. 

Apion  (193-21  i):  Hexaemeron  (lost).  Cf.  Euseb.  Hist.  ecc.  V,  27;  Hieron. 
De  uir.  ill.    48. 

Aristotle  (384-322  B.C.).     13  f.;  46,55,58. 

Arnoldus  of  Chartres  {ca.  1160):  Tradatus  de  opcribus  sex  dierum  (MPL 
CLXXXIX,  1507  ff.;  Max.  Bibl.  Patr.  XXII,  1284  ff.)-  Begimiing  with 
the  Augustinian  doctrine  of  an  extra-temporal  and  extra-spatial  God 
(1515A,  1516A),  and  a  world  eternal  in  its  rationes  causales  contained  in 
the  Word  (1515CD),  but  not  eternal  in  its  present  state,  he  says  that 
creation  is  one  act  (1518A),  explains  the  days  as  the  order  in  which  the 
world  was  unfolded  to  Adam  by  the  Word  (1520CD),  and  interprets  alle- 
gorically  the  works  of  the  separate  days. 

Athenagoras  Atheniensis  {ca.  177):  Supplicatio  pro  Christianis;  De  resur- 
rectione  (Otto,  VII). 

Augustinus  Hipponensis  (d.  430):  De  Genesi  contra  Manichaeos  (cited  as 
Man.) ;  De  Genesi  ad  Littcram  Imperfectus  Liber;  De  Genesi  ad  Litteram 
Libri  XII  (cited  as  Lit.);  MPL  XXXIV;  the  two  latter  also  ed.  J. 
Zycha,  CV  XXVIII.  Confessiones  (ed.  P.  Knoll,  Leipzig,  1898);  De 
ciuitate  Dei  (cited  as  DCD;  ed.  B.  Dombart,  Leipzig,  1877).  64  ff.;  16  f., 
19  ff. 

AuxiLius  (end  ninth  century):  cited  ap.  Monitum  in  Pisidae  Hex.,  MPG 
XCII,  1391,  as  the  author  of  capita  cxxxvii  in  Hexaemeron,  which  the 
writer  claims  exists  in  manuscript  in  the  Bibliotheca  Casinensis. 

Bandinus  ( ?  i2th  century) :  Sententiarum  II.  IV.  {MPL  CXCII).  See  Peter 
Lombard. 

Bartholomaeus  de  Luca  {ca.  1300):  Hexaemeron  (lost);  see  note  ap.  MPG 
XCII,  1389. 


INDEX   OF   NAMES  95 

Basilius  Magnus  ((1.37Q):  ^ex<jem<Ton  (A/PC  XXIX).     42  fl.;  17,10,62. 

Basilius  Seleucien'SIS  {ca.  458):  Oralio  I  (AfPG  LXXXV,  27  ff.).  A  sermon 
containing  certain  topics  of  Basilius  Magnus;  introduces  mention  of  Job 
38:7. 

Beda  Venerabilis  (673-735):  Ilexaemeron  (MPL  XCI):  Dc  naiura  rerum 
(MPLXC);  Commentarii  in  Gencsim  (MPL  XCI);  spurious  commentaries 
on  the  worlc  of  the  six  days  arc  printed  (i/».  .1/ PA  XCIII.     77  fl. 

Bernardus  Silvestris  of  Tours  {ca.  1145-53):  De  mutuii  universiUile,  site 
megacosmus  et  microcosmtis  (edd.  Baruch  et  Wrobel,  Innsbruck,  1876). 
88  f.;  6,  7f.,  iQ,  86. 

Bruno  of  Asti,  bishop  of  Segni  and  abbot  of  Monte  Cassino  (104Q-11 23): 
ExposUio  super  Pentateuchum  {MPL  CLXIV.  147  fl.;  Max.  Bibl.  Pair. 
XX,  i30QfT.);  an  account  following  chiefly  Beda  and  .Ambrose,  with  the 
Augustinian  ideas  of  God's  immutability,  and  including  allegorical  inter- 
pretations. 

Candidus  (1Q3-211):  Ufxacmcnyn  {\o?,i).  Cf.  Euseb. //j^/.  ftr.  V,  27;  Hieron. 
De  iiir.  ill.  40. 

Cedrenus,  Georgius  {ca.  1000):  2vvo«/'i?  loTopimv  {BC,  ed.  I.  Bekker). 
Cedrenus  gives  a  short  account  of  creation  compiled  chiefly  from  Syn- 
cellus  and  the  account  mentioned  under  Symeon.  The  matter  taken 
from  the  former  was  originally  from  Jubilees,  with  the  citations  of  .Annianus 
and  .Africanus  mentioned  below  {see  Syncellus).  In  g,  19-21  he  cites 
Josephus  and  Jubilees,  but  the  other  citations  of  the  latter  come  through 
Syncellus. 

Chalcidius  {ca.  300  ?):  Translator  of  and  commentator  upon  Plato's  Timaeus 
(ed.  Wrobel,  1876).  The  translation,  which  goes  through  53B.  was  an 
important  source  of  knowledge  of  Plato  in  the  Middle  .Xges;  the  com- 
mentary is  a  source  for  certain  Hebrew  interpretations  of  Genesis.     34  f. 

Chrysostomus,  Johannes  (d.  407):   Ilomiliae  in  Genesim  XII  {MPG  LIU). 

57- 
Clemens  Alexandrinus  {ca.  150 — 211-16):  "YirorvTrwo-ei?  (lost;  see  Photius 
cod.  109).  This  work  treated  of  Genesis;  Photius  alleges  that  therein 
Clement  expressed  belief  in  the  eternity  of  matter,  metempsychosis,  the 
existence  of  worlds  before  .Adam;  that  he  called  the  Son  a  creation 
(KTur/Att);  and  that  he  had  a  theory'  of  two  logoi,  one  that  of  the  Father, 
the  other  that  of  the  Son.  Bigg  {Christian  Platonists  of  Alexandria,  69  n. 
3,  270  n.  i)  shows  that  Clement  did  use  the  verb  ktH^uv  of  the  Son.  and 
that  the  statement  of  Photius,  that  Clement  thought  the  angels  joined 
in  wedlock  with  human  women,  is  correct,  but  argues  convincingly,  by 
comparison  with  the  extant  works  of  Clement,  that  the  rest  of  Phoiiu.s' 
statement  must  rest  upon  a  blunder.  Nourry  {ap.  Clem.  Al.  Opera,  ed. 
Dindorf,  I\',  512!!.)  also  rejects  the  testimony  of  Photius  because  it 
does  not  agree  with  the  estimate  of  Clement  in  Euseb.  Hist.  ecc.  VI, 
13  ff.     41- 


96  THE  HEXAEMERAL  LITERATURE 

CoNSTANTiNUS  Manasses  (first  half  of  twelfth  century):  Swoi^is  XP°^<-'^V 
(BC,  ed.  I.  Bekker).  Poetical  paraphrase  of  slight  value.  He  gives 
(243-44)  the  etymology  of  "Adam"  found  in  Josephus. 

COSMAS  IndICOPLEUSTES  {ca.  537):  XpiaTLavLKY]  TOTToypa^ui  (ed.  Mont- 
faucon,  whose  paging  is  given  supra;  reprinted  ap.  MPG  LXXXVIII; 
see  also  The  Christian  Topography  of  Cosmas,  an  Egyptian  Monk,  trans- 
lated and  edited  by  J.  W.  McCrindle,  London,  for  the  Hakluyt  Society, 
1897).     60  ff. 

Cyprianus  Gallus  {ca.  400?):  Heptateuchos  (ed.  R.  Peiper,  CV,  XXIII).  A 
metrical  paraphrase,  apparently  used  by  Marius  Victor  and  Hilarius  (see 
Peiper  op.  cit.  xxv-xxvi).  The  portion  on  Genesis  was  published  by  GuU. 
Morel,  1560,  as  by  Cyprianus,  bishop  of  Carthage,  and  is  included  as  a 
doubtful  work  of  the  latter  by  Hartlein,  CV  III ;  it  was  ascribed  to  Juven- 
cus  by  Card.  Pitra  and  others. 

DiODORUS,  bishop  of  Tarsus  (d.  before  394):  Commentarii  in  Genesim  (frag- 
ments ap.  MPG  XXXIII).  Diodorus  was  the  teacher  of  Theodorus  of 
Mopsuestia.     61. 

Dracontius  {ca.  440):  Carmen  de  laudihus  Dei  {MPL  LX;  ed.  VoUmer, 
Mon.  Germ.  Hist.  auct.  ant.  XIV,  i).     Paraphrase  of  Genesis. 

DuBartas,  Guillaume  Salluste  (b.  1544):  Premiere  semaine.  An  account 
of  the  six  days  of  creation  showing  some  connection  with  the  ancient 
sources,  notably  Pisides  (whom  DuBartas  knew  through  the  Latin  of 
F.  Morel  and  followed  closely  in  some  parts).  He  introduces  the  Aristo- 
telian doctrine  of  the  interchange  of  the  elements  and  an  account  of  their 
chaotic  strife  based  apparently  on  Ovid  {Met.  I,  5-20)  or  Lucretius.  He 
holds  to  a  literal  interpretation  of  the  days  of  creation  and  takes  from 
Pisides  much  of  the  Physiologus  matter.  In  certain  topics  (see  notes 
supra)  he  agrees  with  other  Hexaemeral  writers;  he  introduces  physiologi- 
cal matter  after  the  fashion  of  Ambrose  and  probably  knew  some  of  the 
Latin  poems  on  Genesis.  On  the  life  and  works  of  DuBartas,  see  Georges 
Pellissier,  La  vie  et  les  ceuvres  de  DuBartas,  Paris,  1882.  Citations  are  to 
the  English  translation  of  Sylvester  or  the  Latin  of  Gabriel  de  Lerm 
(London,  1591).  891?.  Several  French  poets  imitated  the  Premiere 
semaine: 

Du  MoNiN,  Jean-Eduard  (1557-86):   Beresithias. 

De  Gamon,  Christophe:   Creation  du  monde  contre  celle  du  Sieur 

DuBartas  (1609). 
De  Riviere,  Alexandre:  Zodiaque  poetique  et  philosophique  de  la  vie 

humaine. 
D'Aubigne:  Creation  {(Euvres,  III,  327  ff.). 

Epiphanius  Cyprensis  {ca.  400) :  De  mensuris  et  ponderibus.  Also  cited  by 
Cosmas  326,  and  by  Anast.  Sin.  together  with  Eusebius  Emessenus  {q.v.) 
as  a  commentator  on  the  Hexaemeron. 


INDEX    OF    NAMES  97 

Erigena,  Johannes  Scotus  (ca.  810-  ca.  877):  De  diuisiont  naturae  {MPL 
CXXII).     73fl.;  87,89. 

EuCHERlus,  bishop  of  Lyons  (d.  44q):  Hexaemcron  (spurious;  attributed  to 
Eucherius  by  the  first  editor,  J.  Al.  Brassicanus,  reprinted  ap.  MPL  L, 
895  ff.) ;  closely  following  Augustine.  The  commentary  on  Genesis  in  foU. 
63M-76M  of  cod.  27  (s.  viii)  at  the  library  of  the  Grande  Sfminaire,  Autun, 
headed  Isidori  lunioris  expositionutn  scntencies  intexuimus  (the  last  word 
somewhat  indistinct)  probably  is  identical  with  that  attributed  to  Euche- 
rius (see  L.  Delisle,  Extrait  de  la  Bibl.  de  I'A'cole  des  Charles,  LIX,  386-87, 
392).  Cod.  27  however  mentions  the  writer's  authorities  (omitted  in 
the  pseudo-Eucherius),  among  them  St.  Gregory,  which  as  Delisle  re- 
marks would  preclude  its  attribution  to  Eucherius.  Isidorus  Junior  has 
usually  been  understood  to  be  Isidorus  himself,  but  \V.  M.  Lindsay  {CI. 
Qu.,  January,  191 1)  suggests  that  he  may  be  Julius  Toletanus  (d.  690). 
A  few  Hexaemeral  topics  are  found  in  the  Instructiones  of  Eucherius  (ed. 
C.  Wotke  CV  XXXI,  66  fT.). 

EuGENius  Toletanus  {ca.  550):  Monosticha  de  opere  sepiimi  diet  {MPL 
LXXXVII).     Cf.  Manitius,  Gesch.  d.  chr.-lat.  Pocsie  426.     73  n.  i. 

EuSEBlus  Emessenus  (d.  ca.  360):  Said  by  Anastasius  Sinaita  (968C)  to  have 
written  on  the  Hexaemeron  ''to  the  letter,"  without  allegory.  See  also 
Assemann,  Bibl.  Orient.  Ill,  44. 

EusTATHius  Antiochenus  {ca.  325):  Ucxaemeron  (spurious;  first  edited  by 
L.  Allatius,  1629,  and  reprinted  in  MPG  XVIII,  767  fif.).  The  treatise 
follows  Basil  closely.     Allatius  gives  no  details  as  to  the  MSS.     42. 

EuSTATHlus  {ca.  440):  Latin  translation  of  ha.s\Vs  Uexaemeron  {MPL  LIII, 
867  fl.). 

EuTHYMlus  ZiGABENUS  (living  in  1 1 18):  Panoplia  orthodoxae  fidei  {MPG 
CXXVni  ff.;  Latin  translation  in  Max.  Bibl.  Pair.  XIX).  A  collection 
of  excerpts. 

Freculphus.  bishop  of  Lisieux  (d.  850):  Chronica  {MPL  C\'I,  917  fl.).  begin- 
ning with  an  account  of  creation  showing  influence  of  contemporar>' 
Hexaemcra. 

Gennadius  (patriarch  of  Constantinople  458-471):  Fragments  on  Genesis 
ap.  MPG  LXXXV,  1623  ff. 

Gennadius.  bishop  of  Marseilles  {ca.  495):  De  uiris  illuslribus  or  De  scrip- 
toribus  (ed.  Herding  together  with  Hieron.  De  uir.  ill.;  also  in  .MPL  L\'III) 
furnishes  information  on  certain  lost  Hexaemera  of  the  first  five  centuries. 

GiRALDUS  DE  Barri  or  C.\MBRENSis  (1147-fu.  1217):  Symbolufti  electorum 
(ed.  J.  S.  Brewer,  Rolls  Series).  II.  i  is  entitled  De  mutuii  creatione 
et  conlenlis  eiusdem,  of  which  the  author  says  (p.  421),  "plus  philosophioim 
quam  theologicum  nonnullis  in  locis  dogma  secuta." 

Glyca,  Michael  {ca.  1150):  Annals  {MPG  CLVIII  cited  here;  ed.  I.  Bekkcr, 
BC).    The  first  part  is  an  extensive  compilation  of  fragments  from  Basil 


98  THE  HEXAEMERAL  LITERATURE 

(the  chief  authority),  Severianus,  Justin,  Chrysostom,  Theodoretus, 
Maximus,  John  of  Damascus,  Anastasius,  Patricius,  etc.  He  is  the  only 
one  of  the  Byzantine  historians  to  make  notable  use  of  the  Physiologus. 
Knunbacher  380  ff.     42. 

GoDEFRiDUS  of  Viterbo  (d.  1191):  Pa«//!eo«  (reprinted  from  Muratorius  o/>. 
MPL  CXCVIII,  871  ff.,  not  including  any  of  the  OT.  history).  A  his- 
tory of  events  from  creation  to  1186  a.d.;  mentions  Julius  Africanus  as 
an  authority  (878D). 

Gregorius  Nazianzenus  (d.  389) :  Orationes  {MPG  XXXVI) ;  Poemata  dog- 
matica  {MPG  XXXVII) .     53 . 

Gregorius  Nyssenus  (d.  397):  De  opificio  hominis;  Liber  in  Hexaemeron; 
Homiliae  in  uerba  Faciamus  Homlneni  (MPG  XLIV).  53  ff.;  17  f.,  46, 
49  n.  4. 

Guibertus,  abbas  B.  Mariae  Nouigentis  (d.  ca.  iioo):  Moralia  in  Genesim 
{MPL  CLVI,  19  ff.).    AUegorical. 

Helinandus,  Cistercian  monk  at  Froidmont  (d.  1229):  Chronicon  (part, 
beginning  with  Book  45,  printed  MPL  CCXII,  771  ff.).  Of  the  fate  of 
this  work  and  of  its  nature  Vincent  of  Beauvais,  Spec.  hist.  XXIX,  108, 
says:  "et  etiam  Chronicam  dihgenter  ab  initio  mundi  usque  ad  tempus 
suum  in  maximo  quodam  uolumine  digessit.  et  hoc  quidem  opus  dissi- 
patum  est  et  dispersum  ut  nusquam  totum  reperiatur."  It  is  cited  by 
Vincent. 

Heliodorus  {ca.  340):  De  naturis  rerum  exordalium  (lost).  Gennadius  De 
script.  6:  "Heliodorus  presbyter  scripsit  librum  de  naturis  rerum  exor- 
dalium, in  quo  ostendit  unum  esse  principium,  nee  quidquam  coaeuum 
deo,  nee  mali  conditorem  deum,  sed  ita  bonorum  omnium  creatorem  ut 
materia  quae  ad  malum  uersa  est  post  inuentam  malitiam  a  deo  sit  facta, 
nee  quicquam  materialium  absque  deo  credatur  conditum  aut  fuisse 
alium  rerum  creatorem  praeter  deum,  qui  praescientia  sua  cum  prae- 
uideret   morti  dari   {al.   mutandam)     naturam  praemonuit   de  poena." 

HiEROisrYMUS  (331-420):  Liber  Hebraicarum  quaestionum  in  Genesim  {MPL 
XXIII,  2).  The  treatise  De  uiris  illustribus  is  a  source  of  information  on 
certain  lost  writings. 

HiLARio,  QuiNTUS  JuLius  {ca.  397) :  Chronologia  sine  Libellus  de  mundi  dura- 
tione  {MPL  XIII,  1097  ff.).  Briefly  mentions  the  days  of  creation;  an 
adherent  of  the  world-week  theory. 

HlLARius  Arelatensis  (d.  ca.  450):  Metrum  in  Genesim  ad  Leonem  Papam 
(ed.  R.  Peiper,  CV  XXXIII  231  ff.;  also  ap.  MPL  L,  1287  ff.).  Rather 
free  poetic  paraphrase  of  the  Genesis  story. 

Hildebertus  Gallus  {ca.  1055-1134):  De  opere  sex  dierum  (elegiac  poem; 
MPL  CLXXI,  1213  ff.).  Sandys,  Hist.  Class.  Schol.  I,  551.  For  the 
most  part  allegorical,  but  contains  some  common  topics  (e.g.,  Augustine's 
explanation  of  God's  rest). 


INDEX   OF    NAMES  QQ 

HiPPOLYTUS  {ca.  235);  Cf.  Hieron.  De  uir.  ill.  61 :  "scripsit  nonnullos  in  scrip- 
turas  commentarios  e  quibus  haec  reppcri:  in  hexaemeron,  in  post  hexae- 
meron  ....  in  Genesim,"  etc.;  Euscb.  Hist.  ecc.  VI,  22,  the  source  of 
Jerome,  does  not  especially  mention  the  latter  commentary.  Fragments 
are  published  by  the  Preussische  Akademie  der  VVissenschaften,  in  their 
volume  on  Hippolytus;  also  in  MPG  X,  583  fT.  In  the  catalogue  of  his 
works  discovered  on  a  marble  pedestal  in  Rome  {CIG  8613)  appears: 
TTpos'EAArjva?  kol  Trpo?  TlKdruiva  ^  Koi  -rrcpl  Tov  TravTck,  usually  identified 
with  the  work  mentioned  by  Photius  (cod.  48).     Christ  735.     39. 

HoNORius  OF  AuTUN  (ffl.  ii2o):  Hexaemeron  {MPL  CLXXII,  253(1.);  De 
imagine  mundi  {ibid.  iigfT.);   Elucidarium  {ibid.  iiogfT.).     85. 

Hrabanus  Maurus  {ca.  784-856):  Commentarii  in  Genesim  {MPL  CVII, 
439  ff.).     Influenced  chiefly  by  Beda. 

Hugo  of  Amiens,  archbishop  of  Rouen  (d.  1164):  Tractatio  in  Hexaemeron 
{MPL  CXCII,  1247  ff.) ;  only  a  part  has  been  printed.  The  treatment  of 
God's  attributes,  the  question  of  the  impulse  to  create,  etc.,  are  influenced 
by  Augustine. 

Hugo  of  St.  Victor  (d.  ca.  1141):  .\dnotationes  elucidatoriae  in  Penlaletuhum 
{MPL  CLXXV,  ii  ff.).  He  rejects  .Augustine's  doctrine  of  creation  in 
one  act  and  in  general  follows  Beda. 

lOBlus  (sixth  century):  OlKovofuKr]  wpayfuiTiia  (cf.  Phot.  cod.  222  and  fragg. 
ap.  MPG  LXXXVI,  3,  3313-3320).  Discussed  creation  to  some  extent — 
see  Phot.  p.  182  b  27  ed.  Bekk.,  and  gave  a  lengthy  discussion  of  the  ques- 
tion why  nothing  is  said  of  the  angels  in  Genesis  {ihid.  187  b  22).  Cf. 
Krumbacher,  56. 

Irenaeus  (bishop  of  Lyons  after  177).    36. 

IsiDORUS  HiSPALENSiS  (d.  636):  De  natura  rerum;  Elymologiac  {MPL 
LXXXII) ;  Quaestiones  in  Genesim  (an  allegorical  work,  MPL  LXXXIII. 
207  ff.);  Liber  numeroriim  qui  in  sancta  scriptura  occurrunt  {ibid.  179  ff.); 
De  ordine  creaturarum  {ibid.  913  ff.);  Sententiae  {ibid.  547  ff.). 

JOSEPHUS,  Flavius  (b.  ca.  37;  d.  under  Hadrian):  Antiquitatum  Iiidaicarum 
Libri  XX.  (ed.  B.  Niese,  Berlin,  1887).     34. 

Julius  Polydeuces  {ca.  1000):  A  Byzantine  chronicle  falsely  attributed  to 
him  (ed.  J.  B.  Bianconi,  Bononiae,  1779;  I.  Hardt,  I ulii  Pollucis  Historic 
Physica  sett  Chranicon,  1792);  cf.  Krumbacher  342  ff.,  363.  Contains 
the  creation  account  in  Symeon  {q.v.)  without  the  matter  drawn  from 
Jubilees  (Schalkhausser  Makarios  M agues,  131,  177,  178). 

Justin  Martyr  (d.  ca.  163):  .ipologiae  (Otto,  I).  Not  strictly  a  Hexaemeral 
author;  on  his  doctrines  of  logos,  creation  and  matter,  cf.  Pfattisch, 
Der  Einjluss  Platos  auf  die  Theologic  Juslins  des  Mdrtyrer,  Paderbom, 
1910,  53  ff.,  93  ff-     12  n.  7;   36. 

Juvencus,  C.  Vettius  Aquilinus  {ca.  349):  The  jwom  Liber  in  Genesim  {MPL 
XIX,  345  ff.)  is  identical  with  that  of  Cyprianus  Gallus  and  is  not  by 
Juvencus  (Arevalo  ap.  MPL  XIX,  18  ff.). 


lOO  THE   HEX.A.EMERAL   LITERATURE 

Lactantius  {ca.  320):  Diuinae  institutiones  (ed.  Brandt,  CV  XIX);  De 
opificio  Dei  {ibid.  XXVII).  Book  II  of  the  former  touches  upon  the 
Hexaemeral  theme.  He  argues  that  God  made  matter  because  otherwise 
God's  work  would  not  differ  from  man's  (II,  8,  17  fi.)  and  because  either 
God  must  come  from  matter  or  vice  versa  {ihid.  31  flf.).  Since  only  that 
which  has  sense  can  originate  motion,  and  since  providence  is  necessary 
in  every  creation,  God,  not  matter,  is  eternal.  Matter  if  eternal  would 
not  suffer  change  {ihid.  41).  The  Son  is  the  assistant  of  God  in  designing 
and  creating  the  world  {ihid.  7).  Chap,  v  of  De  opificio  Dei  deals  with 
providence  as  manifested  in  the  structure  of  the  body;  Lactantius  seems 
to  have  drawn  from  the  same  sources  as  Ambrose  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
Hexaemeron  (G.  Gossel,  Quibus  ex  fontihus  Ambrosius  in  describendo  cor- 
pore  humano  hauserit,  Leipzig,  1908,  49  fif.). 

Leo  Grammaticus  {ca.  1013):  Byzantine  chronicler  {Leonis  Grammatici 
chronographia,  ed.  I.  Bekker,  BC)\  originally  contained  the  creation 
account  in  Symeon  Logothetes  {q.v.) ;  only  the  latter  part  is  now  preserved. 

Macarius  Magnes  {ca.  400) :  Aoyot  ei?  t^v  Feveo-tv,  a  fragment  of  which  is 
preserved  in  cod.  Vat.  gr.  2022  (see  G.  Schalkhausser,  Zu  den  Schriften  des 
Makarios  Magnes,  Leipzig,  1907,  137,  who  also  shows  that  the  fragg. 
printed  by  Crusius  ap.  MPG  X  are  not  by  Macarius). 

Marius  Victor,  Claudius  (d.  before  450  ?) :  Alethia  (ed.  C.  Schenkl,  CV  XVI, 
359  ff . ;  also  ap.  MPL  LXI,  937  flf.).  A  poetical  paraphrase  of  the  creation 
story  in  Genesis  (in  Book  I)  showing  familiarity  with  the  prose  Hexae- 
mera.  On  the  question  of  the  author's  identity  see  Schenkl  op.  cit.  346  fi. ; 
Manitius  Gesch.  d.  chr.-lal.  Poesie  180.  Schenkl  identifies  him  with  the 
Victorius  of  Genn.  De  script.  61;  Manitius  is  somewhat  doubtful  about 
the  matter.     73  n.  i. 

Marius  Victorinus,  C.  {ca.  250):  Translator  of  Platonic  and  other  Greek 
works.     12. 

Maximus  (193-211):  Ilepi  T^s  vXr]<i,  quoted  by  Euseb.  Praep.  ev.  VII,  22;  cf. 
Euseb.  Hist.  ecc.  V,  27;  Hieron.  De  uir.  ill.  47.  The  fragment  in  Eusebius 
denies  the  pre-existence  of  matter  on  the  ground  that  two  eternal  principles 
cannot  coexist  independently. 

Methodius  {ca.  275):  Ilepi  twv  yevrjTwv  (lost;  but  see  Phot.  cod.  235).  The 
passage  preserved  is  part  of  a  polemic  against  Origen;   Christ  748.     40. 

Milton,  John  (1608-1674):  Paradise  Lost.  Book  VII  contains  an  account 
of  the  six  days  of  creation,  exhibiting  many  traces  of  the  influence  of  the 
Hexaemera.  In  Book  VIII  Milton  introduces  speculation  about  the  helio- 
centric hypothesis.     89  ff. 

More,  Henry  (1614-1687):  Conjectura  Cabbalistica,  or  a  conjectural  essay 
interpreting  the  mind  of  Moses  in  the  three  first  chapters  of  Genesis,  accord- 
ing to  a  three-fold  Cabbala,  viz.,  literal,  philosophical,  mystical,  or  divinely 
moral.     1662. 


INDEX    OF    NAMES  lOI 

Neckam,  Alexander  (1157-1217):  De  naturis  rerum  lH>ri  II.  (ed.  Th.  Wright, 

Rolls  Series,  London,  1863).     Incidentally  treats  of  creation,  interpreting 

"heaven,"  "earth,"  and  "light"  with  Augustine  (I,  3).    The  parts  of  the 

universe  are  described  at  length. 
Neo-Platonists.     iQfT.;  16. 
Odo  Callus  (d.  Q42):  Occupationes  (lib.  I.  dc  opificio  dci,  lib.  II.  de  crcationc 

hominis)  MPL  CXXXIII. 
Origenes  (d.  254):   De  principiis  {MPG  XI);   Homiliae  in  Genesim,  Commen- 

tarii  in  Genesim  {MPG  XII).    39  ff- ;  1 5.  44- 
Pa.ntaenus  (d.  shortly  before  200).    36. 

Fapus  of  Hierapolis  {ca.  130):  Cf.  Hieron.  De  uir.  ill.  18.     36. 
Petrus  Comestor  (d.  1179):  Historia  schoUistica  {MPL  CXCVIII,  1053  ff.). 

An  account  in  prose  of  the  biblical  writings;  that  of  Genesis  is  of  the  usual 

mediaeval  type,  influenced  mainly  by  Beda  and  .\ugustinc;    much  cited 

by  X'incent  of  Bcauvais.     13. 
Petrus  Damianus   (d.    1072):    Commentaria   in  Genesim  e.x  epistidis  colUita 

{MPL  CXLV.  QQi  ff.);  aUegorical. 
Petrus  de  Riga  of  Rhcims  (d.  i2og):    Aurora,  or  Bibliotheca  (fragmentary 

selections  ap.  MPL  CCXII,  17  fl.).     Poetical  paraphrase  of  the  Bible, 

including  Genesis;  revised  by  .^egidius. 
Petrus  Lombardus  (d.  1160):   Libri  Scntentiarum  IV.  {MPL  CXCII),  the 

second  book  treating  of  creation.     Beda  and  .Augustine  are  the  main 

authorities   and  little  originality  is  displayed.     .\n  abbreviated  version 

of  the  same  was  made  by  Bandinus  {q.v.). 
Philippus  Sidetes   {ca.   430):    Xpioruivtic^   Icrropui.   (lost);    began   with   an 

account  of  creation;  cf.  Phot.  cod.  35. 
Philo  Carpathius  (Carpasius)     {ca.  400):     Author  of  a  commentar>-  on 

Canticles;  Cosmas  329-30  cites  a  commentary  on  the  Hexaemeron. 
Philo  Judaeus  {fl.  ca.  40  a.d.):  De  opificio  mundi  (L.  Cohn  and  P.  VVendland. 

Philonis  Alexandrini  Opera,  Berlin,  1896-1906,  Vol.  I).     27  ff.;   5.  10,  15, 

16,  43-44.  60. 
PiiiLOPONUS,  Johannes  {ca.  550):   De  opificio  mundi  (ed.  Reichardt,  Leipzig, 

1897).     58;  s,  10. 
Photius  {ca.  860):    Bibliotheca  (ed.  I.  Bekker,  Berlin,  1824).    A  source  for 

certain  Hexaemera  otherwise  unknown. 
Plato  (427-347  b.c):    Timaeus.     Editions,  J.  Burnet.  Oxford,  1005;    R.  D. 

Archer-Hind.  London,  1888.     2  fl.;   29,  34,  43.  54,  84  ff.,  90. 
Pisides,  Georgius  {ca.  640):   Hexaemeron  (text  ap.  Hercher's  ed.  of  Aelian, 

II,  Leipzig.  1866;    MPG  XCII).     The  Monitum  in  Pisidae  Hexaemeron 

in  .Migne  contains  a  list  of  writers  on  the  Ile.xaemcron.     57,  89. 
i'Kiscn-LiANUS  (d.  385  ?) :   Tractatus  Genesis  (ed.  (i.  Schepss,  CV  XVIII.  62  flf.). 

.\  sermon  warning  against  the  belief  that  the  world  is  eternal  or  that  the 

body  was  created  by  the  devil,  with  brief  and  uncritical  account  of  the 

Hexaemeron. 


I02  THE   HEXAEMEIL\L   LITERATURE 

Proba,  Valeria  Faltonia  {ca.  350):  Cento  (ed.  C.  Schenkl,  CV  XVI,  513  ff.; 

MPL  XIX).     A  paraphrase  of  the  biblical  account  made  up  of  lines  and 

half -lines  of  Vergil. 
PROCOPros  Gazaeus  (ca.  520):  Commentarius  in  Genesim  (MPG  LXXX.VI1, 

21  fit.);  drawn  chiefly  from  Basil  and  Severianus. 
Prosperus  Aquitantjs   (ca.  400):    Carmen  heroicum  de  diuina  prouidentia 

MPL  LI,  618  fif.);  contains  a  brief  incidental  account  of  creation  but  not 

of  the  six  days. 
Prudentius  ica.  405) :    Commentarii  de  fabrica  mundi  (lost) ;    cf .  MPL  LIX 

Intr.,and  Gennadius  Z)e  5cn/>/.  13:  ".  .  .  .  commentatus  est  et  in  morem 

Graecorum  Hexaemeron  de  mundi  fabrica  usque  ad  conditionem  primi 

hominis  et  praeuaricationem  eius." 
Raleigh,  Sir  Walter  (ca.  1 552-1618):  The  History  of  the  World  (cited  in  the 

edition  printed  for  A.  Constable  &  Co.,  Edinburgh,  1820,  6  vols.).     Book 

I.  chaps,  i-ii,  deal  with  Genesis.     89  flf. 
Remi  of  Auxerre  (d.  ca.  908):  Expositio  super  Genesim  {MPL  CXXXI,  53  ff.). 

Modeled   chiefly   after  Beda   (especially  in  the  interpretation  of  Gen. 

1:2)  with  some  trace  of  Ambrosian  influence.     Manitius  515. 
Rhodon  (180-193) :  Hexaemeron  (lost).     Cf.  Euseb.  Hist.  ecc.  V,  13,  8;  Hieron. 

De  uir.  ill.  37. 
RiCHARDUS  DE  DuMELLis  (d.  iioo):  Commentary  on  Genesis;  a  few  fragments 

ap.  MPL  CLV,  1629  ff.;  the  rest  said  to  be  in  MS.     Allegorical. 
ROBERTUS  ScRiBA  (ca.  1190) :    Lib.  I.  de  operibus  sex  dierum  (cat.  Oxon.  n. 

5105);  see  MPG  XCII,  1391- 
Rupert  of  Deutz  {ca.   11 24):    Commentarii  in  Genesim  {MPL  CLXVII, 

199  ff.).     The  work  in  general  treats  of  the  same  topics  as  Augustine  and 

Ambrose  (with  the  former  he  understands  the  first  made  light  to  refer 

to  the  angels,  but  he  does  not  adopt  his  explanation  of  the  meaning  of  the 

days). 
Salvianus  {ca.  440):   Hexaemeron  (lost);    Gennadius  De  script.   67:  ".  .  .  . 

et  in  morem  Graecorum  a  principio  Genesis  ad  conditionem  hominis  com- 

posuit  uersu  Hexaemeron  lib  rum  unum." 
Severianus  of   Gabala  {ca.  400):    Eh  Koaixo-n-oiuiv  Ao-yot   U  {MPG  LVI, 

429  ff.).     57,  61  ff. 
Sextus  Julius  Africanus  {ca.  220):  IlevTa/JtjSAov  xP^voXoyiKov  (lost;  but 

see  Phot.  cod.  34).     History  covering  the  period  from  creation  (placed 

at  5500  B.C.)  to  221  A.D.;   cited  by  some  of  the  Hexaemeral  writers;    it 

may  have  included  an  account  of  creation  according  to  Genesis.     Cf. 

Eus.  Hist.  ecc.  VI,  31;  Hieron.  De  uir.  ill.  63;  Christ,  751;  H.  Gelzer,  Sex- 
tus lulius  Africanus,  Leipzig,  1898. 
Stoics.    14  ff. 
SuAREZ,  Francisco  ( 1548-16 17):    Tractatus  de  opere  sex  dierum,  sen  de  uni- 

uersi  creatione,  etc.  (ed.  Birckmann,  1622;   accessible  to  me  only  through 

Huxley,  "Mr.  Darwin's  Critics,"  Contemp.  Rev.  XVIH,  443  ff.).     Suarez 

believed  that  the  six  days  were  natural  days  and  that  Hving  things  and 


INDEX   OF   NAMES  IO3 

vegetables  were  created  in  their  species  at  first,  and  not  derived  from  semi- 
nal principles  as  Augustine  thought  {Tr.  II,  7,  8);  and  that  the  scriptural 
story  of  the  creation  of  Eve  is  to  be  taken  literally  {Tr.  Ill,  2,  3).  "On 
the  first  of  these  days  the  materia  prima  was  made  out  of  nothing,  to  receive 
afterward  those  substantial  forms  which  moulded  it  into  the  universe  of 
things"  (Huxley,  op.  cit.  455).     64. 

SvMKuN  LocoTiiETES  (cd.  q63-<)69)  :  Byzantine  chronicler  to  whom  are  ascribed 
various  chronicles  beginning  with  a  short  account  of  the  creation,  which 
appears  in  the  recension  of  Cieorgius  Hamartolus  (being  drawn,  with  other 
material,  from  Symeon  and  added  to  the  original  of  Georgius;  cf.  Krum- 
bacher  355;  text  ap.  M PG  CX).  Leo  Grammaticus,  Theodosius  Melitenus, 
pseudo-Julius  Polydeuces  and  an  anonymous  author  ap.  cod.  Vat.  gr.  163, 
in  practically  identical  form.  The  account  is  a  mere  compilation,  chiefly 
drawn  from  Basil  for  the  six  days'  work  and  from  Greg.  Nyss.  on  the  crea- 
tion  of  man;  there  is  a  trace  of  the  use  of  Philo  (Praechter,  "Unbeachtete 
rhilonfragmente."  Arch.  f.  Gesch.  d.  Phil.  IX,  4,  415  fT.)  and  of  Jubilees, 
in  all  but  pseudo-Polydeuces  (G.  Schalkhausser,  op.  cit.  131).  For  an 
exhaustive  study  of  the  sources  see  Schalkhausser  143  fif.  The  compiler  is 
nut  known;  Schalkhausser  184-85  thinks  it  came  from  some  late  Greek 
tlorilegium;  Praechter  op.  cit.  believes  that  there  were  two  forms  of  the 
account,  drawn  from  some  unknown  source,  one  represented  by  pseudo- 
Polydeuces  alone,  the  other  by  the  remaining  writers.  On  the  connection 
of  Symeon  with  the  account  see  Schalkhausser  128  n.2.     57  n.  2. 

Symellus,  Georgius  (alive  in  810):  'E»cAoy^  •)^povoypa<^ia<i  {BC.cd.  W.  Din- 
dorf).  His  account  of  creation,  4,  IQ-5,  iS.  is  compiled  from  Jubilees, 
and  was  used  later  by  Cedrenus.  The  chronicle  begins  with  a  section  on 
Gen.  1:1  and  cites  Greg.  Naz.  (4,  1-2).  From  Annianus,  Hippolytus, 
and  Maximus  (cf.  597,  10  ff.)  he  takes  the  calculations  placing  creation 
on  March  25  (i.  6-3,  3).  He  also  cites  .\fricanus  to  the  effect  that  the 
first  day  was  conceptual  (4,  17-18).  and  Chr>'sostom  (5,  19-6,  2)  as 
authority  for  the  statement  that  Adam  was  expelled  from  Eden  on  the 
sixth  day. 

Tasso,  Torquato  (i 544-95) :  Le  sctte  giornatc  del  mondo  crealo  (\'iterbo,  1607). 
89  fl. 

rATiANUS  .\SSYRUNUS  {ca.  165) :  Oraiio  contra  Graecos  (Otto,  VI).     18  n.  4. 

Thkodoretus  episcopus  Cyrensis  (b.  ca.  386-93.  d.  45S):  QuaestionfS  in 
Genesim  {M PG  LXXX,  75  ff.).     57,  61  ff. 

FuEODORi'S  MopsiESTiENSis  (fd.  350-428):  Commmtarii  in  Getusim  (frag- 
ments a  p.  MPG  LXVI;  cf.  Phot.  cod.  38;  acts  of  the  second  Council  of 
Constantinople;    Philoponus  De  mundi  opijicio,  passim).     57,  590. 

ruEODORUS  Prodromi'S  (fd.  1 1 50) :  Epigramnuita  in  Vctus  Testamcntum 
(.\fPG  CXXXIII,  iioi  ff.);   poetical;   of  slight  value. 

ruEODOSlus  Meutexus  (fd.  looo):  Byzantine  chronicler  {Thcodosii  Melitmi 
qui  Jertur  chronographia,  ed.  Tafel.  Munich.  1859).  Contains  in  full  the 
account   of  creation   found   in  Symeon  Logothetes   (</.:•.);     Krumbacher 


I04  THE   HEXAEMERAL   LITERATURE 

362-63.  Theodosius  is  cited  in  the  notes  supra  as  representative  of  all 
the  authors  who  use  the  account  of  the  Logothete. 

Theophilus  of  Alexandria  (end  of  fourth  century):  Mentioned  by  Anast. 
Sin.  together  with  Eusebius  Emessenus  {q.v.);  an  opponent  of  Origen; 
Gennad.  De  script.  34:  "scripsit  aduersus  Origenem  unum  et  grande 
uolumen  in  quo  omnia  paene  dicta  et  ipsum  pariter  damnat." 

Theophilus  Antiochenus  (bishop  of  Antioch  after  168):  Lihri  III  ad  Auto- 
ly cum  {Otto,  Vlll).     37  &.;    15. 

Thierry  of  Chartres  (d.  ca.  1150):  Hexaemeron  (part  has  been  edited  by 
B.  Haureau,  Notices  et  extraits  de  quelques  manuscrits  latins  de  la  Biblio- 
theque  nationale,  Paris,  1900, 1,  52  ff.).     83  f.;  8,  87  f. 

ViCBODUs  {ca.  790  ?):  Quaestiones  in  Octateuchum  {MPL  XCVI,  iioiff.); 
a  compilation  without  originaHty  from  Augustine,  Ambrose,  Jerome, 
Isidore,  et  al. 

ViCTORiNUS  Petavionensis  (end  of  third  century) :  De  fahrica  mundi  {MPL 
V,  301  if.;  fragmentary).  It  is  little  more  than  a  paraphrase  of  Genesis, 
distinguished  by  the  symbolical  interpretation  of  numbers. 

ViNCENTius  BuRGUNDUS  of  Beauvais  {ca.  1240):  Bibliotheca  mundi  (Douai, 
1624).  Vol.  I,  Speculum  naturale,  and  Vol.  IV,  Speculum  historiale,  treat 
of  creation  incidentally. 

Walafridus  Strabus  (d.  849) :  Glossa  ordinaria  {MPL  CXIII,  67  ff.) ;  com- 
piled from  Augustine,  Beda,  Isidorus,  etc.     Manitius  305. 

Wandalbertus  of  Prum  {ca.  850) :  De  creatione  mundi  {MPL  CXXII,  635  ff.). 
Short  poem  in  pherecratics,  showing  some  Hexaemeral  influence,  e.g.,  the 
identification  of  the  light  with  the  angels;  the  erect  stature  of  man.  Also 
printed  in  Mon.  Hist.  Germ.,  Poetae  Lat.  Aeui  Carolini. 

William  of  Conches  (1080-1154):  De  philosophia  mundi;  Commentary  on 
Plato's  Timaeus  {MPL  CLXXII,  as  works  of  Honorius).     84. 

"Wisdom"  Literature.     24. 

Zacharias  {ca.  540) :  Disputatio  de  mundi  opificio  {MPG  LXXXV) ;  a  dialogue 
aiming  to  demonstrate  that  God  created  the  world. 

Zonaras,  Johannes  {ca.  1100-1140):  Epitome  historiarum  (ed.  Dindorf,  Leip- 
zig, 1868).  12,  1-15,  29  contain  an  account  of  creation  compiled  from  the 
Bible,  Jubilees  (cf.  13,  3-10),  Josephus,  and  the  account  of  Symeon  Logo- 
thetes.  Josephus  is  cited  by  name  15,  23,  and  Zonaras  adopts  certain 
phrases  from  him  (e.g.,  cf.  Zon.  13,  23  and  Jos.  Ant.  lud.  9,  18;  Zon.  13, 
31-32  and  Jos.  9,  20).  The  most  important  citations  of  the  account  of  the 
Logothete  are  those  dealing  with  the  making  of  the  beasts  (Zon.  14,  13-25 
and  Theod.  Melit.  3,  27  ff.)  and  with  the  creation  of  man;  other  similari- 
ties show  that  Zonaras  used  the  account  freely.  In  stating  that  the  firma- 
ment is  hard,  and  not  fine  of  texture  (13,  14  ff.),  he  is  probably  objecting 
to  the  view  there  expressed.  In  12,  1-14  he  quotes  Greg.  Naz.  (cf.  Greg. 
Or.  45,  4-5). 


i 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 
or  to  the 
NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
BIdg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 


7[r^5^i^^^^^^'^^RECAUE°  AFTER  7  DAYS 
2  month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calhng 

Vy'eXt  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books 

Ren°el1s'and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days 
prior  to  due  date 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


FEB  1  8  1990 

^     NOV  10  1991 


mo  DISC  TO  0^*9^ 


\m  -MM/JJ4993^ 


— OUM-MrBS^ 


Is^^M)^'  5?  1QP4       University  of  California 
'^^  '  Berkeley 


'  CAUFh  BERiC 


^ 


